[Grand Jury] final report

June 2004
To the People of San Luis Obispo County
This Final Report is presented to you by the 2003- 2004 San Luis Obispo County Grand
Jury. It is the compilation of the major inquiries conducted during our service.
Each July the Superior Court for the County of San Luis Obispo impanels a Grand Jury
to serve through the following June. Thirty candidates, including up to ten holdovers
from the previous jury, are nominated by Judges of the Superior Court. The names, mi-nus
holdovers, are then drawn in a lottery- type process. The first nineteen, including
holdovers, are sworn in and constitute the Grand Jury. Eleven alternates are chosen in
the order in which they are drawn. At the filing of this report, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury
consists of seventeen jurors, including three who were originally chosen as alternates.
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury represents a wide range of ages, from a young Cal Poly sen-ior
political science major, to residents well into their retirement. Our education and
experience includes retired teachers, farmers, executives, a social worker, an employed
technician, professionals, and a retired city manager, professor, and law enforcement
officer. Most of the county geographical areas were represented. The commonality
among jurors was the commitment and responsibility to the citizens of the county they
represented. For many of us, serving as jurors was a significant education on how local
government functions. It was also an opportunity to provide recommendations, where
appropriate, for improvements.
Each juror participated on two committees that met at least weekly, and more often as
the year progressed. The committees were: County, City, Law & Justice, and Health &
Social Services. We also held weekly general session meetings, where the committees
provided status reports and the Grand Jury deliberated on voting matters. A quorum of
at least 12 members was always present for official voting.
Our inquiries were initiated by citizen complaints or by a juror, committee, or the Grand
Jury as a whole. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury received nearly eight hundred citizen com-plaints
concerning fifty different issues. These complaints were first referred to the
appropriate committee to review and to conduct a preliminary investigation. If the com-plaint
met the established criteria, the committee would recommend that the Grand Jury
authorize further investigation.
Many complaints did not require action beyond the initial review. In some cases these
complaints were not within our county or civil jurisdiction, or we determined that the is-sues
could best be resolved through other avenues. Other reasons we did not pursue a
complaint included: the matter was currently in the legal process, it was received too late
in our term, or, in the judgment of the Grand Jury, it was not in the best interest of the
community to pursue.
Grand Jury work was not confined to the jury offices. As you will read in our reports, ju-rors
conducted numerous on- site inspections, including the required reviews of the
California Men’s Colony and the El Paso de Robles Youth Authority. We also met with
many department heads, and visited the San Luis Obispo County Jail, Juvenile Hall, and
Office of Emergency Services. Toward the end of our term, we toured the PG& E Diablo
Canyon Power Plant.
In the course of our investigations, we interviewed more than 70 witnesses. We thank
all those who contributed their time and energy in providing important information to us.
The offices of both the District Attorney and County Counsel provided significant legal
guidance for our investigations. Their responsiveness and thoroughness was greatly ap-preciated.
The California Penal Code requires that the Grand Jury submit a Final Report to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court prior to the end of its term. As required, the judge
approved this report prior to its publication.
For a report that includes findings and recommendations, elected county officers and
heads of county agencies and departments must reply to the Presiding Judge within 60
days. The governing bodies of other public agencies, concerning matters under their
control, must respond within 90 days.
The required responses are specified in Penal Code § 933.05, as follows:
( a) ... as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate
one of the following:
( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which
case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed
and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
( b) ... as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity
shall report one of the following actions:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be imple-mented
in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and
the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of
the public agency when applicable. The timeframe shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Agency, Board of Supervisors, and other responses to Grand Jury findings and recom-mendations
are required to be on file with the clerk of the public agency, the office of the
county clerk, and the currently impaneled Grand Jury. We anticipate that the responses
to this report will be available on the Grand Jury web site by the end of this year.
1
VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE
TABLED ON DEPUTY DA’S TABLE
Synopsis
On the evening of September 7, 2002, the Grover Beach Police Depart-ment
responded to the report of an accident involving a vehicle and two
pedestrians crossing Grand Avenue at Fifth Street. This accident caused
one pedestrian fatality. The police investigated and sent their report to
the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's Office. The District Attor-ney's
Office did not file any charges against the driver or reject the case,
and, after six months, sent the case to the Attorney General's Office for its
review. The Attorney General also declined to file charges and returned
the case to the District Attorney's Office on August 26, 2003. Later, two
deputies from the Attorney General’s Office came to our Grand Jury office
to present their reasons for declining to file charges against the driver.
This Grand Jury report examines the handling of the case by the Grover
Beach Police Department and the San Luis Obispo County District Attor-ney.
Key issues include: 1) the time taken to process the case in the Dis-trict
Attorney's Office, 2) why it was transferred to the California State At-torney
General's Office, 3) the time the case was held at the Attorney
General's Office, and 4) why and how the District Attorney finally filed the
charge after the Attorney General's rejection. California law requires the
prosecuting attorney to file charges in a misdemeanor manslaughter case
within one year of the victim's death; otherwise, the statute of limitation
prevents filing and prosecution. The Grand Jury, knowing of the ap-proaching
statute of limitation deadline, made this investigation a top pri-ority.
It was not until September 5, 2003 that the District Attorney filed
one charge of misdemeanor manslaughter.
Why the Grand Jury Investigated
In August 2003, the parents of the fatally injured girl petitioned the Grand Jury to explore
why the District Attorney's Office did not act. The family had been frustrated in their
attempts to receive information about the status of the case, and later, by the Attorney
General's decision not to file. The concerned family and others submitted 704 com-plaints
to the Grand Jury requesting an investigation, the first arriving on August 14,
2003. The family sought to motivate action because the impending September 11, 2003
expiration of the statute of limitation would prevent any subsequent criminal prosecution.
2
Authority
The Grand Jury exercises its authority to investigate the San Luis Obispo County District
Attorney under Penal Code 925, which states " The grand jury shall investigate and
report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions
of the county" and for the Grover Beach Police Department under Penal Code 925a,
which authorizes the investigation of city departments. The last two parts of this report
are informational only, and are included to help the reader make the bridge between the
case leaving, then returning to the county.
Background
A traffic accident occurred in Grover Beach that resulted in the death of a 17- year- old
girl. Typically, in a case of a traffic accident resulting in a fatality, the law enforcement
agency of the local jurisdiction where the accident occurred conducts a comprehensive
investigation of the accident scene, the vehicle, and any persons who were involved or
witnessed the event. After assessing the information compiled, the local agency then
forwards its report, along with any recommended charges, to the County District
Attorney's ( DA) Office for review of the file, any necessary additional investigation, and a
decision whether or not to file charges against any participants. If the DA's Office feels
that charges are appropriate and a reasonable chance exists to sustain the charges, the
DA will file the determined charges with the appropriate court of law.
The DA is elected by the voters of the county to a four- year term to lead the county's
prosecuting agency. Due to the volume of misdemeanor and felony cases forwarded to
the DA's Office by local law enforcement agencies each year, the DA employs a staff of
deputy DAs to assist with review and prosecution of cases. Among these are a chief
deputy who serves to oversee the deputies; a filing deputy responsible for case review
and filing of the less serious, or misdemeanor cases; and a filing deputy for the more
serious felony cases. The filing deputies must make the decision whether or not to file
charges before the statute of limitation expires. Once it expires, the opportunity to
prosecute ends, regardless of the merit of the charges or the ability to successfully
prosecute the case. When the filing of a case involving injury or death occurs, the Victim
Witness ( VW) Division of the DA's Office is notified. VW then assigns a staff advocate to
provide assistance and support to the victim and/ or family throughout the process of
prosecution.
When a valid or perceived conflict of interest exists, the DA's Office may request a
review by the Attorney General's ( AG) Office. The AG's Office also employs a staff of
deputies and assistants to handle the review and prosecution of cases. If, in the opinion
of the AG's staff attorneys, sufficient grounds exist to file charges and a reasonable
chance for prosecution exists, the AG's Office will file charges in an appropriate court.
Generally, if the AG's Office determines that grounds are insufficient, the case is closed
and the matter ends.
3
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury requested, in some cases subpoenaed, copies of the police file, the
driver's previous driving history, his court and probation records, and his insurance claim
pertaining to this accident. Some of the documents gathered for the investigation
include the District Attorney's Protocol Addressing Conflict of Interest and Case
Management and Complaint Filing Procedures. In addition we obtained Victim Witness
notes, various correspondence, attendance sheets, and workload records for the
Misdemeanor Filing Deputy District Attorney ( Filing Deputy). The Jury also examined
minutes of the Pension Trust Fund meetings for the past five years, Pension Trust Fund
travel and expense vouchers for that Filing Deputy and the Tax Collector who is the
father of the driver involved in the accident. We then reviewed the above materials,
which precipitated our need to question individuals on several matters.
The jury conducted interviews with police officers from the Grover Beach and Pismo
Beach departments who responded to the accident. We interviewed many District
Attorney personnel to learn what actually transpired in the District Attorney's Office after
the police report was submitted. We questioned the intake secretary, the Filing Deputy,
the Chief Deputy District Attorney, three other deputy district attorneys, the information
technology lead programmer, and three victim witness advocates including the Victim
Witness Director who had talked with the family. In all interviews conducted, the GJ
placed the witnesses under oath and admonished them not to discuss the proceedings
with anyone else. At least nine jurors were present at each interview, and the proceed-ings
were tape recorded for later reference and review by the jurors who were not able
to attend. Some of these interviews were transcribed by one of the jurors for clarification
of the facts.
Members of the Grand Jury visited the location of the accident at night, observed the
scene, the lighting, and even crossed the street using the same crosswalk. Later, two
deputies from the Attorney General's Office came to our Grand Jury Office to present
their reasons for declining to file charges against the driver.
We developed this report for the public after reviewing the information extracted from a
myriad of sources. We have organized the data chronologically within each section as
much as possible. The investigative Parts 1 and 2 detail the events by numerical order.
The informational sections, Parts 3 and 4, use the narrative form. Acronyms will be used
throughout the report for convenience. The following table of acronyms will help the
reader.
4
Acronyms Used
AG California Attorney General
AGH Arroyo Grande Hospital
DA San Luis Co. District
Attorney
GB Grover Beach
GBPD Grover Beach Police Dept
GJ San Luis Co. Grand Jury
MAIT Calif. Highway Patrol's
Multidisciplinary Accident
Investigation Team
PB Pismo Beach
SLO San Luis Obispo
VW Victim Witness
Part One: Grover Beach Police Department ( GBPD)' s accident investigation
Part Two: San Luis Obispo County District Attorney ( DA)' s Office processing and
Victim Witness ( VW) handling of the case
A) Communication within DA staff and filing conflicts:
What went on in the DA's Office?
B) Case remains in the DA's Office for six months without a decision to file or
reject: How could " shelving" of the file go unnoticed for six months?
C) Victim Witness involvement: How could the VW Office better assist the
family?
Part Three: Transfer of the case to the California Attorney General ( AG) Office
Part Four: The District Attorney reclaims the case. AG Office relinquishes the case
to the SLO DA Office and DA files the charge of vehicular manslaughter
without gross negligence.
5
PART ONE
Grover Beach Police Department Investigates
Facts:
( 1) Two teenage female pedestrians were crossing Grand Avenue northbound at 5th
Street in Grover Beach at 9: 04 p. m. on Saturday, September 7, 2002.
( 2) A 1997 Chevrolet Tahoe was traveling west on Grand Avenue at the same time.
( 3) The vehicle struck the pedestrians, causing serious injuries that resulted in the
subsequent death of one girl and minor injury to the other.
( 4) GBPD responded to the emergency call.
Findings:
( 1) The GB police officer on patrol at the time arrived within two minutes of the
accident.
( 2) The San Luis Obispo Ambulance Service was requested at 9: 06 p. m., arriving at
9: 10, to provide medical attention and to transport the seriously injured victim to
Arroyo Grande Hospital ( AGH). A second ambulance, summoned at 9: 12 p. m.,
arrived at 9: 17, took the other victim to AGH where she was treated and re-leased.
( 3) The GB responding officer interviewed and took statements from five witnesses
at the site of the accident.
( 4) The GB officer interviewed the driver and administered a preliminary alcohol
breath test, then released him.
( 5) When another GB police officer came on duty, that officer went to the driver’s
home, and at 10: 11 p. m., took him to AGH to obtain a blood sample.
( 6) Neither the first- responding GB police officer, nor his watch commander on duty
at the time of the accident, had the training required to issue a citation at the
scene of the accident unless he had witnessed the accident.
( 7) A Pismo Beach police officer with advanced traffic accident training arrived at
9: 57 p. m. and assisted with the investigation, as requested by GB police.
( 8) The GB police officer's report did not indicate any adverse weather or lighting
conditions as contributing causes of the accident.
( 9) The police report showed no tire skid marks on the pavement.
6
( 10) The GBPD impounded the vehicle and arranged for a full inspection.
( 11) The GB officer and a police volunteer took photos that night, and later, during the
accident reconstruction.
( 12) On September 10, 2002, the GBPD requested that California Highway Patrol
Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team ( MAIT) inspect the vehicle. MAIT
inspected the vehicle on September 12, 2002.
( 13) MAIT's vehicle inspection ruled out malfunction as a cause of the accident.
( 14) September 11, 2002, four days after the accident, the seriously injured victim
died from the injuries she had sustained.
( 15) On September 24, 2002, the GBPD submitted a complete report in triplicate -
including accident details, photos, medical reports, and witness statements - to
the SLO County DA Office.
( 16) The GB police accident report recommended that the DA review the report for
possible prosecution of the driver for violation of Penal Code Section 192( C), ve-hicular
manslaughter without gross negligence, and Vehicle Code Section
21950( a), pedestrian right of way at a crosswalk.
( 17) After submitting its report to the DA's Office, GBPD considered its task complete.
Per the department’s standard operating procedure, police personnel did not
make any further inquiries about the case or the possible prosecution of the
driver.
Conclusions:
( 1) The GBPD conducted a thorough investigation of the accident.
( 2) Accident reconstruction efforts followed guidelines detailed in the Collision
Investigation Manual.
( 3) Weather, lighting, and vehicular malfunction were ruled out as causative factors.
( 4) GBPD insured that the appropriate medical reports were included in the investi-gation
package before delivery to the DA.
( 5) The initial responding officers were unable to write a citation at the scene
because they lacked the requisite training.
( 6) GBPD processed the case efficiently and effectively.
( 7) GBPD's delivery of the complete report to the DA’s office was timely.
7
Recommendations:
( 1) The GBPD should make every reasonable effort to train additional field personnel
so that citations may be written at the scene, when appropriate.
( 2) In future cases involving death or serious injury, the GBPD should routinely
follow up and inquire of the DA as to the status of the case.
GBPD Response Requirement
Under Penal Code Section 933( c), the governing body of the GBPD shall comment to
the presiding judge on these findings and recommendations no later than 90 days from
this report's publication.
PART TWO
District Attorney's Office Processing
and Victim Witness Handling of the Case
A. What went on in the District Attorney's Office?
Facts:
( 1) The DA's receptionist received the file from the GBPD on September 24, 2002
and date- stamped it.
( 2) The Intake Secretary personally delivered the large file to the Deputy DA
responsible for misdemeanor filings after numbering and processing the file.
( 3) No system was in place at that time for tracking misdemeanor cases.
( 4) The file remained in the Filing Deputy's office from late September 2002 until
March 26, 2003.
( 5) The Filing Deputy did not contact GB or PB police officers about their accident
investigation, or call upon the DA investigators to conduct additional investiga-tion.
( 6) The Filing Deputy stated to the GJ that he did not discuss with his colleagues his
problem with filing.
( 7) The District Attorney received a letter from the victim's mother on March 18,
2003, questioning the delay in filing charges.
( 8) On March 26, 2003, the Chief Deputy DA told the filing deputy to file the case.
8
( 9) The Filing Deputy said he could not file the case because he could not find a
violation of the vehicle code.
( 10) This same Filing Deputy filed serious criminal charges against this same driver in
1999 which resulted in a conviction.
( 11) The Filing Deputy told the GJ that in reviewing the file in March 2003, he
discovered that the driver is the son of the County Tax Collector whom he knows.
The Filing Deputy serves with the County Tax Collector on the County Pension
Trust Fund board, which poses a possible appearance of conflict of interest.
( 12) Upon learning that the County Tax Collector is the driver's father, the Chief
Deputy took the file for transfer to the AG's Office on March 26, 2003 to avoid
any perception of conflict of interest.
Findings:
( 1) The Filing Deputy had opportunity to examine the file in late September 2002.
( 2) The file remained in the Filing Deputy's office for six months without the
knowledge of senior DA personnel due, in part, to the lack of a tracking system.
( 3) The Filing Deputy did not act on the case, to either file or decline to file, during
the six months the case remained on his desk.
( 4) He did not seek advice of the Chief Deputy DA or the DA after he read the file.
( 5) He did not discuss with other DAs, before March 26, 2003, any perceived
problem about filing.
( 6) Each time the victim's mother requested to speak to him he declined. He chose
to communicate through the victim's family’s attorney.
( 7) The Chief Deputy, on March 26, 2003, directed the Filing Deputy by saying, " You
need to file this case." It was then that the Filing Deputy said he first noticed a
document from the tax collector's office bearing the name of the driver's father.
( 8) The Chief Deputy, acting on this possible conflict, contacted the AG Office in Los
Angeles, asking that office to review the file.
( 9) The Senior Assistant AG stated that the case did not meet the usual parameters
of conflict, but would take it as a courtesy.
( 10) GJ investigation of Pension Trust Fund minutes of January 26, 1998 through July
28, 2003, travel vouchers, conference expenses, and Auditor/ Controller records
of the past five years did not expose any connections that suggested a conflict
9
between the Filing Deputy and the County Tax Collector, despite their serving on
that same committee.
Conclusions:
( 1) The Filing Deputy did not act to perform his duty to file or reject this case.
( 2) The Filing Deputy withdrew from any of the alternative actions available to him.
( 3) The Filing Deputy, when questioned by the Grand Jury, had no acceptable
explanation for his inaction.
( 4) The lack of a tracking system for misdemeanors allowed this case to go
unresolved and unnoticed for six months.
( 5) The Chief Deputy DA accepted the perception of a conflict of interest and
referred the case to the AG.
( 6) The District Attorney's Office did not file or reject the case in March 2003,
causing additional extended stress to the victim's family.
( 7) Because of this case, in April 2003, the Chief Deputy DA requested two new
systems of tracking. One was to track the more serious high misdemeanor ( red
dot) pending cases; the more recent one, for pending cases neither filed nor re-jected.
( 8) This case fueled the formulation of a new procedure ( still in draft in the DA's
Office) titled Filing Procedures for Vehicular Manslaughter Cases ( and Other
Cases Involving a Fatality).
( 9) The Grand Jury found nothing to indicate to us that a conflict of interest existed
with the DA handling the case, in the interviews we conducted or the records we
reviewed.
( 10) The Grand Jury’s initial observation was that the Filing Deputy’s performance in
the handling of this case should be sanctioned. However, a closer examination
revealed that management personnel either knew, or should have known, that a
review of this fatal accident was pending. News articles, for example, were
printed at the time of the accident in local newspapers in which the driver was
named. News articles in December 2002 identified the driver as the son of the
County Tax Collector.
Recommendations:
( 1) The DA’s Office should track all cases, starting from the time a file comes to the
office, rather than when the deputy files it. [ The new Pending Cases ( Neither
Filed or Rejected) does this tracking now.]
10
( 2) Encourage Deputy DAs to seek input of each other and of their superiors
regarding problematic and difficult cases.
( 3) The Grand Jury recognizes that this is a small county and therefore many people
in county government know each other. This makes it even more imperative that
the DA's Office identifies conflicts early on in their handling of criminal cases.
( 4) The DA’s Office should substantiate claims of conflict of interest more carefully
before referring cases elsewhere.
B. How could " shelving" of the file in the DA's Office go unnoticed for
six months?
Facts:
( 1) No computer program existed for tracking misdemeanors.
( 2) At that time, no system of " red flagging" existed for misdemeanors before filing a
case.
( 3) The Filing Deputy did not act or say anything to his colleagues about this case.
( 4) Management in the DA's office was not aware of the inaction.
Findings:
( 1) Only felony cases were trackable at the time.
( 2) Communication within the DA's Office regarding this file was insufficient.
Conclusions:
( 1) Tracking systems for misdemeanors could have prevented the lengthy " shelving"
of the file.
( 2) The Filing Deputy failed to make a timely decision to file or reject.
Recommendations:
( 1) The Chief Deputy should periodically evaluate the computer programs designed
and implemented for tracking high misdemeanor ( red dot) cases and the new
pending cases, now that such tracking is available.
11
( 2) The Chief Deputy DA should exercise closer control/ oversight of deputies'
caseloads to monitor status of cases.
( 3) Management should take a more assertive role in supervising employees of the
DA's Office and take corrective action when needed.
C. How could the Victim Witness Office better assist the family?
Facts:
( 1) The case was delivered to the DA's Victim Witness ( VW) Division Assistant
Director's desk, but no action was initiated because a filing had not occurred yet.
( 2) No procedure was in place to require a contact with victims' families until after a
filing occurred.
( 3) The victim's mother made the first contact with VW Assistant Director on
December 23, 2002, asking to see the Filing Deputy.
( 4) The victim's mother requested the help of VW on seven occasions. She had
questions about the lack of progress of the case.
( 5) Subsequent communication between the victim's mother was with another VW
advocate. The Assistant Director assigned this advocate to the case on February
6, 2003.
( 6) VW made no other attempts to satisfy the request of the victim's mother when the
filing deputy declined to talk with her.
( 7) The VW advocate and Assistant Director did not communicate with the Director
of the VW Office concerning victim's parents' inquiries.
( 8) The first contact initiated by VW to advocate on behalf of the victim's family was
on March 10, 2003. [ The accident was in September 2002.]
( 9) The Filing Deputy advised the VW advocate on March 10, 2003, that he was
inclined not to file the case.
( 10) The Director of VW stated that she did not know of the police report until March
31, 2003.
( 11) The Director of VW and Chief Deputy DA met with the victim's mother on April
10, 2003, to inform her that the DA had referred the case to the AG's Office.
( 12) The Director of VW spoke with the DA on July 24, 2003, after victim's mother
requested the DA re- review the case.
12
Findings:
( 1) At the time of the accident, Victim Witness lacked policy for discussing with
victims' family where death is involved. [ New policy addresses this.]
( 2) Communication within the VW Office was insufficient in this case.
( 3) The VW Assistant Director realized the father- son relationship of the County Tax
Collector and the driver upon his review of the file.
( 4) The victim's family did not receive support and VW advocacy until the case went
to the AG's Office.
Conclusions:
( 1) Lack of communication within the VW Division hindered effectiveness of service
to this victim's family.
( 2) VW did not reach out to the family until after filing of the case, almost seven
months later.
( 3) The VW advocate was not helpful in addressing this victim's parents' anxieties
when they repeatedly requested status reports.
( 4) Lack of initiative and responsiveness reflects negatively on staff and division.
( 5) Policy and procedures failed to address this case while the Filing Deputy
remained undecided.
( 6) The policy in existence at the time and the lack of a tracking system prevented
timely assistance to victim's family.
Recommendations:
( 1) The director should schedule regular VW Division meetings for discussion of
current cases among all advocates.
( 2) The division should develop guidelines to offer appropriate assistance to families
of victims while waiting for the DA's decision to file or reject. [ New procedure has
been drafted and instituted as of December 11, 2003 as a result of this case.]
( 3) Assistant directors should monitor DA intake data to assess need for VW
intervention. [ Also part of new procedure.]
( 4) VW advocates should promptly notify the Chief Deputy DA when filing deputies
are not responding in a timely manner to victim's requests.
13
DA and VW Response Requirement
Penal Code Section 933( c) mandates that the DA shall comment within 90 days to the
presiding judge on the findings and recommendations in this report directed to the DA
Office and the Victim Witness Division.
PART THREE
Transfer of the Case to the
California Attorney General ( AG) Office
The DA's office sent the case to the Los Angeles office of the California Attorney
General on March 26, 2003, with a letter advising that
1) "... a conflict of interest exists which would preclude the prosecution of
the above- entitled matter by our office," 2) the "… case does not fit the
strict traditional definition of a conflict of interest, but better judgment
would indicate that an impartial review and prosecution of the case would
be in the public interest due to the complex net of interactions that the fa-ther
of the defendant has with members of our office," and 3) " We would
appreciate it if your office would be kind enough to handle this matter to
avoid any appearance of impropriety in the handling of this case by our
office."
The DA ' s Office sent the file, containing only material related to this incident, to the AG
after the AG agreed to take the case. The AG’s staff conducted their investigation,
holding the case four months before determining that there were not sufficient grounds
to file charges against the driver. We have incorporated in this summary the AG
representatives' explanation to the GJ of some of their investigative process.
On July 21, 2003 the AG met with the victim's family in SLO to apprise them of their
decision to reject the case. Later that week the girl's mother called VW to request the
DA re- review the case. Meanwhile the AG sent a letter to inform the DA of the decision.
On August 19, 2003 the family and others came to meet with the DA and express their
anger and frustration at the long delay of the filing decision. They also communicated
their dissatisfaction with their lack of access to the Filing Deputy. The GJ received these
same complaints in August.
On September 3, 2003, two AG representatives came to the SLO County GJ Office.
They stated this was a highly unusual action. They explained their decision to us and
described what they did in reviewing the case. The AG does not consider the character,
behavior, or prior infractions of a suspect unless it is relevant, or proves some fact, or is
evidence that is usable to support a charge.
14
They stated that they had reviewed the case in light of practices typically applied to
cases reviewed in the Los Angeles urban area, where the number of such cases is
greater. They file only the most provable cases with aggravated circumstances. They
said that they did not consider the possibility of successful prosecution in a less
populous county, despite the fact that workload considerations vary greatly between the
two jurisdictions. On May 4, 2003 a Deputy AG personally visited the site of the incident
and interviewed the GB Police officer who responded to the 911 call.
The AG staff considered whether sufficient evidence existed for filing charges against
the driver. They cited these factors in making their decision:
1) the street lighting at the intersection
2) the dark clothing worn by the victims
3) conflicting evidence that both girls were within the crosswalk at the time the
vehicle struck the girls
4) that the driver’s speed was assumed to be within the posted speed limit, and
5) no evidence that the driver had consumed alcohol.
They examined the cell phone records of the driver for calls made on the evening of the
incident and determined that he was not talking on his cell phone at the time that his
vehicle struck the two girls. They believed that the two victims might have been outside
the crosswalk at the time the vehicle struck the girls.
Because of the focused involvement of the GJ, the AG investigator returned to SLO to
re- examine evidence during the week of August 25- 29. They nevertheless concluded
that, in their opinion, the driver could not have avoided striking the victims. Listening to
the AG's report, the GJ realized that the case file submitted to the AG by the DA's Office
did not include the long list of the driver's prior driving citations and prior road rage
convictions nor had they seen the accident photos.
At the conclusion of the AG's presentation, the GJ's position was that the AG’s Office
should reconsider its decision. The GJ asked the AG to review additional materials and
provided them with accident photos and documents. The jury had compiled this
supplemental information in its investigation of the matter. When the GJ apprised the AG
representatives of these prior convictions, the AG staff responded that they could not
use much of the driver’s prior traffic record because that information would not be
admissible as evidence. The AGs agreed to take the box of materials from the GJ back
to Los Angeles with them. The additional items, however, did not change the AG's
opinion, and they so informed the GJ the next day.
The AG notified the victim's mother again on September 4, 2003 that they were not
prosecuting the case, but that the DA had the option of reclaiming the case. The victim's
mother immediately called VW urging the DA to resume control and file charges against
the driver.
15
PART FOUR
The District Attorney Reclaims the Case
The Senior Assistant Attorney General informed the Chief Deputy DA in a letter dated
July 23, 2003 that the AG staff’s review of the case was completed and that the AG’s
Office decided not to file any criminal charges against the driver. The letter arrived to
the desk of the Chief Deputy DA while he was out of the office on leave. Apparently no
one was assigned to process his mail in his absence. He returned to work August 11
and immediately showed the letter to the DA. The Chief Deputy asked the AG to return
the case paperwork to the SLO DA's Office.
Meanwhile, after learning of the AG's original negative decision, the GJ wrote to the
AG’s Office on August 15, 2003, just after receiving the family's complaints. The GJ
wanted an explanation of the factors contributing to the AG's decision. The GJ advised
the AG of the extensive local news coverage generated by the case and the hundreds of
complaints the GJ had received. The AG decided to present an explanation to the GJ in
person, something rarely done by that office.
On September 3, 2003 two representatives of the Los Angeles division of the AG’s
Office met with the GJ at the GJ office in San Luis Obispo to explain their decision of
July 23. As explained in Part 3 of this report, the GJ disagreed with the AG Office’s
decision and provided the AG representatives with additional information the GJ had
compiled, including photos of the accident scene and information about prior offenses
and convictions of the driver. However, that additional information apparently did not
change the AG Office’s decision not to file charges. The day following that visit to the
SLO GJ, the AG indicated their opinion had not changed despite the input from the GJ.
On September 4, 2003 the attorney for the victim’s family sent a letter to the Chief
Deputy DA stating that “ It is our hope that… your office will now file the misdemeanor
complaint against … and pursue prosecution in this matter.”
On September 5, 2003 the Senior Assistant Attorney General sent a letter to the District
Attorney forwarding more than 300 pages of material, including “… material you have not
previously seen or requested.” She also referred information to the DA relating to a
Department of Motor Vehicles administrative hearing decision to return the driver’s
license and some information regarding the cell phone previously installed in the vehicle.
None of that information proved to be relevant to this investigation.
The AG indicated that the DA's Office was free to file if they chose to do so. That same
day, September 5, 2003, the DA assigned the case to another Filing Deputy with the
instruction to research and review the case and to recommend whether or not to file any
charges. ( Remember that on March 26 the Chief Deputy had instructed the filing deputy
to " file the case.") Later that same day the DA’s Office filed one count of misdemeanor
vehicular manslaughter against the driver.
16
Case Status:
The DA’s Office filed charges on September 5, 2003 in the San Luis Obispo County
Superior Court and counsel for defense immediately proceeded to file a series of
motions. In January 2004 a defense motion to recuse the DA’s Office from the case and
effectively end the prosecution failed in superior court. Defense counsel had requested
an April 2, 2004 hearing regarding his motion involving the prosecution’s failure to
preserve the victim’s blood sample. Arroyo Grande Hospital did not keep the victim's
blood drawn on the evening of the accident. The defense position is that the blood
sample is potentially significant in the case because a preliminary screening by hospital
staff had shown the presence of methamphetamine in the victim. The defense attorney,
however, had a conflict on April 2, and the motion was continued to April 16. A ruling on
all motions is necessary before the trial scheduling date of May 28. The SLO DA is
ready to proceed with the trial, which has been set for June 22.
17
ATASCADERO HIGH SCHOOL
MARCHING BAND PLAYS AT
POLITICAL CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN RALLY
On Sunday, September 28, 2003 the Atascadero High School Marching
Band played at a political rally for then candidate for governor, Arnold
Schwarzenegger. To some county residents, this appeared to be in viola-tion
of the California Education Code, which prohibits use of school
resources for political purposes. Reports of the story in local newspapers
included an opinion from the California Department of Education deputy
legal counsel indicating that, if asked, he would have advised against the
band playing. Within weeks of the event, the Grand Jury received two
complaints from citizens citing this and other news reports, and express-ing
concern that the Atascadero Unified School District had violated the
law in permitting the band to play at the rally.
Authority for the Inquiry
The authority for the Grand Jury to inquire into this matter is given in Section 933.5 of the
California Penal Code: “ The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records
of any special- purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county or
the local agency formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any other inves-tigatory
powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or
system of performing the duties of such district or commission.”
Overview
The Atascadero Unified School District ( AUSD) is responsible for the operation and su-pervision
of thirteen schools, including Atascadero High School. The schools are
located in the northern part of the county, serving the communities of Atascadero, Cres-ton
and Santa Margarita. The district is governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of
seven members who are publicly elected to four- year terms. The Board establishes the
policies that govern the operations of the schools in the district, and hires the District Su-perintendent,
who is responsible for policy implementation.
Many of the Board policies reference the California Education Code, which sets the legal
requirements for public schools in the state. The section of the code relevant to this in-quiry
is 7054( a), which states:
18
No school district or community college district funds, services,
supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the
support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but
not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of
the district.
The applicable AUSD policy mirrors and references this section, and reads:
No district funds, services, supplies or equipment shall be used to
urge the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, in-cluding
any candidate for election to the Board. ( Education Code
7054)
Section 7058 of the Education Code further clarifies 7054 as follows:
Nothing in this article shall prohibit the use of a forum under the
control of the governing board of a school district or community col-lege
district if the forum is made available to all sides on an
equitable basis.
Since the band performance in question occurred at a political rally for a gubernatorial
candidate, some residents questioned whether it violated the Education Code and AUSD
policies. The performance was requested by Assemblyman Abel Maldonado, and the
expenses for it were billed to his office. Nevertheless, some individuals question whether
this is adequate to counter the perception that AUSD resources were used to support a
political candidate.
Method
We obtained the information reported here through review of AUSD policies, correspon-dence
and an interview with the AUSD Superintendent, and an interpretation provided by
legal counsel for AUSD. The Grand Jury requested and received the applicable AUSD
policies and procedures related to the band playing at the rally, as well as information re-garding
the payment of the expenses incurred. Jurors interviewed the superintendent
and reviewed the related documents.
Description of Inquiry
In providing information on behalf of the district, the superintendent repeatedly empha-sized
that the band performance at the rally was never intended to show support for a
candidate, but was considered to be simply an opportunity for the band to perform. Given
the political nature of the rally, specific concerns included whether AUSD funds were
used, whether students were required to participate, and whether the decisions relative
to the band playing at the rally were made in accordance with district policies and public
considerations. Our findings are summarized below.
19
( 1) The AUSD Request for Transportation form details that there were two buses used
for seventy- five students and ten adults to attend the rally in Santa Maria on September
28, 2003. The charges for the two bus drivers, bus mileage, and meals are itemized in
accordance with the AUSD 2003/ 2004 Transportation Rates. The mileage rate includes
an allocation for vehicle maintenance and insurance. The listed expenses totaled
$ 718.85.
( 2) An invoice for $ 718.85 was sent to Assemblyman Maldonado at his office in San
Luis Obispo, and was paid by a check on an account of “ Californians for Schwarzeneg-ger”
dated November 18, 2003.
( 3) The band members were not required to participate. The band’s performance at the
rally was considered to be an extracurricular field trip, for which parental approval was
necessary. One family did not approve and the band member did not perform.
( 4) The decision to allow the band to perform at the rally was made by the principal of
Atascadero High School. This is the appropriate level for approval of field trips, accord-ing
to the district’s organizational delegation of authority. The principal sought additional
review because the performance had the potential for appearing to support a political
candidate. In the absence of the superintendent, the principal consulted with the Assis-tant
Superintendent of Educational Services, who concurred that the field trip was
appropriate.
( 5) The interpretation of the AUSD legal counsel, requested after the fact, supports the
decision to allow the band to perform. The legal opinion was provided in writing at the
request of the Grand Jury, and highlights the reimbursement for the AUSD expenses re-lating
to the performance. The legal counsel’s concluding remarks are as follows:
In this instance, where no District funds were expended, the activ-ity
was voluntary, it was not during school hours, and the intent of
the District administration was to provide students with an oppor-tunity
to perform publicly, there was no violation of Education
Code section 7054 ( a).
The District’s Board and administration has the discretion to de-termine
that there is an educational benefit to AUSDHS band
students performing publicly. Such a determination is appropriate
given that public performance is a natural part of learning to play a
musical instrument in any band. Had the students been provided
with the same opportunity to perform for other candidates, and the
students were able to perform, the intent and impartiality of the
District administration might be more easily understood. But the
lack of additional invitations and opportunity cannot convert the
proper intent of the administration to an improper intent.
20
While the District must avoid using District funds, services, sup-plies
and equipment for the purpose of supporting or opposing
particular candidates or issues, it is nevertheless our opinion that
the AUSDHS Band may voluntarily participate in a public perform-ance,
even at a political event, where no District funds are
expended, and the intent is not to support the candidate, but
rather to provide students with the opportunity to perform publicly.
Conclusion
The issues surrounding the band performance at the political rally appear to be a matter
of legal interpretation. A conclusive opinion would have to come through the courts or
further legislative action. The decision to allow the band to perform in this instance, how-ever,
was made within the spirit and intent of the law as interpreted by the AUSD legal
counsel and consistent with District policy. A new or changed policy that would direct a
different decision regarding marching band performances is a matter for the AUSD Board
of Trustees to consider.
Required Responses
This is an informational report. No formal response to this 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
21
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY
The California Men’s Colony ( CMC) is located on Highway 1 just north of
the San Luis Obispo city limits. It is a low and medium security prison
under the direction of the State of California Department of Corrections,
and includes two main facilities on 356 acres. The West facility houses
the lower security inmates in a barracks- type setting. The East facility,
with more traditional prison cells, primarily houses inmates with medium
security classifications. The total inmate population at CMC in March
2004 was 6,542.
The average CMC employment level is 1,673, of which 952 are custody
staff positions that include correctional officers, counselors, and medical
technical assistants. The local facility and operations are managed by a
warden who is appointed by the governor. Following the former warden’s
retirement, Assistant Warden Leslie Blanks served as acting warden for
almost two years. Current Warden John Marshall was appointed on Oc-tober
30, 2003.
Authority for the Inquiry
The California Penal Code § 919 ( b) establishes the authority for this inquiry as follows:
“ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons
within the county.”
Method
We obtained the information reported here through interviews, documents review, and
visits to the prison. Early in our term, Acting Warden Blanks presented an informational
overview to the full Grand Jury. Members of the jury toured CMC on September 30,
2003, visiting both the East and West facilities. Jurors returned on January 29, 2004, to
meet with the new warden, to visit a vocational class, and to follow up on questions
concerning the Inmate Trust Fund. We were encouraged to talk to inmates and
correctional officers during both visits.
Description and Observations
Our initial visit to the East facility included a tour of prisoner cells, the education facilities,
the operations of the Prison Industries Authority, and a “ typical” inmate lunch in an inmate
dining hall. We were driven in a CMC bus from the East to the West facility where we
observed the barracks, the recreational yards, and the Arts in Correction program.
22
Housing
Inmates are assigned to the East or West facility based on their security levels, which
consider many factors. The lower security inmates ( levels 1 and 2) housed at the West
facility typically have no history of prison disciplinary action, no prior escapes, and a
majority of their sentences served. Higher security levels 3 and 4 are assigned based on
the type of crime, post- conviction behavior, outstanding holds/ warrants, length of
commitment and balance of sentence. Inmates housed in the East facility have level 3,
or medium, security level designations. In addition to security assignments, each inmate
is given an activity assignment that typically requires him to participate in either an
education or an employment program.
Even from our brief tours, it was clear that the housing conditions at both facilities are
crowded. The inmate cells that we observed in the East facility were designed for single
occupancy, although there are currently two inmates living in each 5' X 8' cell. The
second added bunk is hinged on the wall and must be pulled up for the occupants to
move about the cell. The design capacity for the East facility is 2,425, although its
average daily inmate population in March 2004 was 3,689.
The West facility inmates are housed in military- style barracks, each holding approxi-mately
ninety bunks. We observed that there was little room to move around the barracks
even when most of the inmates were outside in the yard. The March 2004 inmate
population of 2,853 is almost double the West facility design capacity of 1,459.
Education
Educational activities primarily include adult basic and high school level academic
classes and vocational programs. Vocational courses include: machine shop, dry
cleaning, electronics, welding, auto shop, small engine/ motorcycle repair, landscaping,
and office services/ related technology. Both the academic and vocational programs are
located at the East facility.
On our second visit we observed the office services/ related technology class; both the
instructor and the curriculum were impressive. It is a self- paced program, with 30
students who use computers with standard business applications. The curriculum
progresses from basic typing and business math, through more advanced subjects such
as bookkeeping and business law. The final modules cover computer applications,
including databases, word processing, spreadsheets, and desktop publishing. It should
be noted that the instructor also includes life skills such as goal setting, self improvement
and presentation skills in the curriculum. We were encouraged to talk to the inmates in
the class and found them to be generally appreciative of the class and the instructor’s
efforts.
We also visited the Arts in Corrections program located at the West facility for lower
security inmates. Although not formally identified as an education program, activities for
inmates provide outlets for artistic expression in words, painting and music. Fifty- four
inmates attend a structured program there as their official assignment. An additional 90
23
inmates voluntarily participate in Arts and Corrections activities during their unassigned
time. We watched a video of an inmate- produced play, and listened to a live perform-ance
of a three person self- written and produced musical piece.
Employment
During our initial visit we met with the director of the CMC Prison Industry Authority ( PIA)
programs. The PIA provides jobs for inmates in the production of goods and services
used both inside and outside of the prison system. We toured the PIA shoe factory, the
T- shirt factory, and the print plant where state auto registration stickers and brochures are
produced. Other PIAs include a knitting mill, jacket factory, glove factory, laundry and
maintenance. In the generally repetitive and fairly low skilled PIA jobs, inmates earn from
$ 0.30 to $ 0.95 per hour. With the exception of those sentenced to life with no parole and
“ three- strikers,” inmates also earn one day off their sentence for each day of work.
We were interested in recidivism ( return rate) statistics for inmates who work and learn
employable skills in the PIA, as compared with those who were not involved in PIA during
their incarceration. Although the state does not currently provide statistics by facility, the
state- wide recidivism figures for the year 2000 provide insight into the influence of the PIA
program. For PIA inmates, the recidivism rates were 19 percent for the first, and 43
percent for the second year. The rate for inmates who had not held PIA jobs was more
than double in the first year ( 43 percent) and was 56 percent in the second year.
In addition to PIA, prisoners may be assigned to other work programs, such as in the
prison’s Food Services division. Other prisoners are assigned as Inmate Firefighters,
who can make from $ 32 to $ 52 per month, or to the Hazardous Materials Unit where
inmates receive $ 48 per month.
Inmate Trust Fund
We requested and received a detailed presentation on the Inmate Trust Fund during our
January visit. The Associate Warden for Business Services and the fund’s Business
Manager provided an overview of the fund’s management. Their philosophy reflects a
respect for the inmates’ right to understand and monitor their funds. The general
approach is that of a bank, and each inmate receives a monthly trust fund balance report.
Additional time is spent explaining these reports to inmates as needed. The fund is also
subject to regular state level audits, which have reported no problems in recent years.
Community Services
During calendar year 2003, CMC had 76,000 hours of inmate time, and 6,071 hours of
staff time involved in fire suppression and “ Fire Kitchen” operations. These figures include
inmates directly fighting fires as well as those involved in setting up and staffing the
kitchens that feed the firefighters. In addition, 4,000 correctional officer hours were spent
supervising these inmates. Inmates also set up a kitchen to serve all those assisting after
the December 22, 2003 San Simeon earthquake.
24
CMC provides inmate service crews to local communities to perform such services as
weed abatement, general clean- up, sandbagging, tree trimming, seaweed cleanup of
beaches, clearing culverts, trash pickup on highways, and fence repair. CMC has entered
into contracts to provide Community Service Crews to the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover
Beach, Morro Bay and Pismo Beach, to the County of San Luis Obispo General Services
and Roads Department, and to Port of San Luis. These crews have also been provided
at no charge to Cal- Trans and San Luis Obispo School District. CMC estimates that
communities saved $ 189,594 by using the CMC crews during the last year.
Inmate groups make cash donations to community groups. In 2003, the Leisure Time
Activity Groups ( Prisoners Against Child Abuse and CMC Literacy Council) distributed
$ 13,250 in cash donations, and an additional $ 4,000 for the annual Holiday Party for
Inmates’ Children. Some other recipients of donations include: Alpha Academy, SLO
Child Development Center, County Mental Health Youth Services, North County
Women’s Shelter, SLO Literacy Council, SLO Prado Day Center, and the Good Samari-tan
Shelter.
Required Responses
This is an informational report. No formal response to this 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
25
CALIFORNIA VALLEY
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Synopsis
The 2003/ 2004 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury received several
complaints from citizens of California Valley regarding the operations of
the California Valley Community Services District ( CVCSD) Board of Di-rectors.
The Grand Jury examined the complaints, interviewed several
witnesses and reviewed the history of other complaints that had been
previously submitted to prior grand juries. After careful consideration, the
Grand Jury determined that insufficient evidence existed for an investiga-tive
report, and instead chose to prepare an informational report to draw
attention to the grievances submitted by the complainants.
Origin of the Inquiry
The complaints submitted to the Grand Jury stated that the CVCSD Board of Directors
did not conform to Brown Act meeting notification requirements or follow appropriate
procedures in handling citizen complaints. In addition, the complainants submitted to the
Grand Jury a petition signed by 73 CVCSD residents requesting that we help them
obtain the following amenities:
1. A gas station,
2. A clinic with doctors once a week,
3. Transportation into town two or three times a week,
4. A mercantile or convenience store, and
5. A water purification system for the entire valley.
Other comments submitted by the residents included unpaved roads in the district area
and the lack of garbage collection.
Authority for the Inquiry
California Penal Code § 933.5 authorizes the Grand Jury to investigate operations of a
special legislative district such as the CVCSD.
Method
Six members of the Grand Jury traveled to California Valley on Monday, February 16,
2004 for an informal meeting with the original complainant and several other subsequent
26
complainants. In addition, the Grand Jury interviewed the County District Five Super-visor,
the County Health Director, the County Director of Public Works, and the County
Auditor/ Controller. Grand Jurors also reviewed reports from previous Grand Jury investi-gations
of the CVCSD.
Setting
The CVCSD is established as a community services district under the provisions of
section 61000 et seq. of the California Government Code. The district is governed by a
five- member board of directors elected at large to four- year overlapping terms. The
district has an annual operating budget of approximately $ 400,000 and is responsible for
provision of basic services, including refuse collection.
The district board hires a general manager to administer and oversee the efficient and
effective provision of these services. During the 2003- 2004 fiscal year a large amount of
the district’s general fund reserves was determined to be missing. After a brief investi-gation,
the County District Attorney’s Office filed charges of embezzlement against the
general manager, who pled guilty to the charges. Although the mystery of the missing
funds has been solved, the fact remains that the district’s general fund reserves have
been severely depleted, leaving the board with insufficient money to continue to provide
several services, including refuse collection, to its residents.
The County Health Director advised the Grand Jury that the CVCSD, per their charter,
has the responsibility for garbage collection in the district area. The County Public
Works Director advised the Grand Jury that the unpaved roads listed in the citizen
complaints are CVCSD roads and, therefore, cannot be paved or maintained by the
county. The County Fifth District Supervisor affirmed that the CVCSD is responsible for
basic service delivery to the area, and advised the Grand Jury that the county does not
have sufficient resources to provide the other services and amenities that California
Valley citizens expect.
The Grand Jury found that CVCSD residents have previously submitted complaints
about the CVCSD Board of Directors to past grand juries. For example, the 1999- 2000
Grand Jury found a history of inefficient and inappropriate operation of the district’s
organization and service delivery.
Conclusions
This Grand Jury attempted to assist the residents of the CVCSD in resolving their
complaints and requests. However, the Grand Jury did not find any evidence of specific
Brown Act violations by the CVCSD Board of Directors. Further, the services and needs
detailed by the residents were beyond the jurisdictional reach of the Grand Jury and the
county.
27
In their report, the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury stated that, “… the CVCSD has a history of
inefficient and inappropriate operation.” The report then emphasized that:
Ultimately, voter participation is the only effective oversight for the
CVCSD. The effectiveness and responsiveness of the board of Directors
are directly related to the attendance and awareness of the electorate.
The Grand Jury urges constituents of the District to keep this in mind and
to become aware of, and involved in, the activities of their District.
This Grand Jury concurs with those conclusions.
Many of the issues in California Valley must be solved by the residents and their Board
of Directors. These issues would be costly to address and may well be beyond the
ability of the board to implement. Prioritization is even more important due to the
district’s unfortunate financial situation. The district has the authority under the
California Government Code to levy the necessary tax assessments to fund the district’s
operations, and must take the responsibility to do so.
Suggested Actions
Under Penal Code § 933.05, the CVCSD was required to respond to the aforementioned
recommendations and findings of the 1999/ 2000 Grand Jury Final Report. This Grand
Jury did not find evidence that such response was ever completed and submitted.
Accordingly, this Grand Jury recommends that the County Counsel advise the CVCSD
Board of Directors that their response to the 1999/ 2000 Grand Jury Final Report must be
submitted to the Superior Court within 90 days of issuance of this report.
The problems that were brought to this Grand Jury must be solved by the CVCSD. The
Grand Jury recognizes the district’s financial condition and understands that the
resident’s complaints and demands cannot be addressed or implemented overnight.
The Grand Jury contends that the Board of Directors must make a concerted effort to
conscientiously address each of these matters in a timely manner. Accordingly, the
Grand Jury also recommends that the CVCSD immediately contact the California
Special Districts Association for any applicable assistance, training and technical support
to prepare and implement a long- term program to address the issues raised by the
residents.
If such a long- term program cannot be implemented successfully on a timely basis due
to financial, realistic or other considerations, the Grand Jury recommends that the
residents of the CVCSD service area seriously consider disbanding the district. Under
such a dissolution, service delivery responsibility would revert to the county, and the
District’s Board of Directors would be replaced by the County Board of Supervisors.
28
Required Response
This is an informational report. No formal response to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
29
EL PASO DE ROBLES
YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
The El Paso de Robles Youth Correctional Facility ( El Paso) is one of
eight institutions operated by the California Youth Authority ( CYA) for the
detention, training and education of youthful offenders. The CYA is a de-partment
of the California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. Recently,
the agency has been under the scrutiny of the Governor, the California
Attorney General, the Legislature, and the new Director of the Youth Au-thority.
As a result, there has been considerable press coverage of CYA
and its facilities during the first part of 2004.
The El Paso facility is located across from the Paso Robles Airport. It
houses male offenders, referred to as “ wards,” who have been committed
to CYA by the Superior or Juvenile Court for offenses that would have
been felonies if committed by adults. Under a special contract with the
Monterey County Juvenile Probations Department, some of their wards
were also located at the El Paso facility. The ward population at El Paso
has been declining in recent years, mainly due to legislative changes. In
April 2002 there were 644 CYA wards and 327 full time staff at El Paso.
The ward population and staff level in April 2004 was 300 CYA wards, 48
Monterey County juveniles, and 264 full time staff.
Authority for the Inquiry
The California Penal Code § 919 ( b) states, “ The grand jury shall inquire into the
condition and management of the public prisons within the county.”
Method
The superintendent and assistant superintendent met with the full Grand Jury in August
2003 to provide an overview of El Paso’s mission and operations. They emphasized
that the facility is open “ 24/ 7” and we were invited to visit at any time. Members of the
Grand Jury visited the El Paso facility on three occasions during subsequent months. In
addition to meetings and tours, the El Paso management and staff provided extensive
documentation about the facility and its programs.
Informational Description and Observations
Our initial visit to the El Paso facility in October 2003 included presentations by the
senior staff and department heads. They provided current program and performance
data related to their area of responsibility. The format allowed questions and interaction
30
with all attendees. We also reviewed with the staff previous Grand Jury findings,
recommendations, and CYA’s responses to them.
We then toured the ward housing units, referred to as “ cottages.” There were nine
active housing units at the time of our first visit, each named for communities in San Luis
Obispo county. The number of wards housed in each unit ranged from 13 to 75, varying
according to capacity and the program it houses. The Cambria cottage is the designated
maximum detention unit. The environment is one of discipline and close personal and
video scrutiny. We verified that there were no “ cages” utilized for restraint or punishment
of the type that had been reported in the press at some CYA facilities.
Wards are assigned to a cottage based on their program assignment, which includes
initial reception and evaluation, drug dependency, food service and firefighters ( fire-fighter
wards have since been integrated into other cottages as a result of budget cuts
detailed below). All wards assigned to a program and cottage wear colored T- shirts
specific to that unit. This allows the correctional officers to quickly identify the wards
when they are going from one area to another and to verify that they are in the proper
location.
An informative part of our tour was a demonstration by the ward firefighters. This unit,
comprised of the most trusted wards, provided significant county and state service. In
2003, the wards expended 111,772 man- hours in emergency fire fighting, controlled
burns, and brush clearance.
Other programs also allowed wards to provide community service. They contributed
over 1,000 man- hours for the December 2003 San Simeon earthquake emergency
response and clean up. An additional 30,000 man hours were dedicated to community
and state activities that included: park maintenance, road/ ground maintenance, flood
control, and general construction. A partial listing of other public service activities the
wards performed included: maintenance for Paso Robles City, Hearst Castle, Atasca-dero
City and Templeton Community Service District, Paso Robles spring clean up,
Camp Roberts weed abatement and wood cutting, and the Mid- State Fair Paso Robles
High School graduation set- up and teardown.
These disciplined service activities provided the wards with an opportunity to make
positive contributions and gave them an incentive to return to society with job- related
behaviors and skills. Nevertheless, as of the time of this report, the state budget cuts
had eliminated the firefighters and the other community service programs, effective
February 29, 2004. There are ongoing efforts to reinstate some of the programs.
Resource groups that continue to be available to wards include: victim’s awareness,
substance abuse counseling, parenting, gang awareness, anger management, and
employability skills.
Members of the Grand Jury attended a lunch meeting with the Citizens Advisory
Committee on March 1, 2004. The approximately twenty members of the Advisory
31
Council represent various volunteer and non- profit organizations that provide support
functions for the wards. The Paso Robles Police Chief is also an active member. The El
Paso senior staff members attend the monthly Council meetings and present updates in
their areas of management. In our one meeting observation, the Advisory Council
appears to function less as an advising body than as an interface between the CYA and
the local community.
At the March meeting, the assistant superintendent gave us copies of two reports
commissioned by the California Attorney General and the Youth Authority: The Review
of Health Care Services in the California Youth Authority released August 22, 2003, and
The General Corrections Review of the California Youth Authority released December
23, 2003. Both reports were the result of thorough investigations over an extended
review period, and both reports are highly critical of the central ( state) and local
management of all CYA institutions. The recommendations, if implemented, will result in
major changes to the CYA.
On March 9, 2004, members of the Grand Jury returned to the facility to observe high
school and general education classes. Our observations were that, although the
instructors were making an honest effort to provide a disciplined and educational
environment, many of the wards did not seem to be engaged in the classroom activities.
The CYA should address whether the instructional content or end results are meaningful
to the general ward population.
Investigation of Pharmacy Medications
In February 2004, The Tribune of San Luis Obispo reported that the state commission
report on health services had found that the El Paso de Robles pharmacy contained
expired medications. Based on that information, and without prior notice, we asked to
review the pharmacy during our March 1 visit. Our intent was to verify that appropriate
corrective action had been implemented. Contrary to the previously touted “ 24/ 7”
availability, the superintendent and assistant superintendent initially balked at our
request, citing various reasons that would prohibit our inspection of the pharmacy. At
our insistence they reluctantly agreed, and three jurors were escorted to the medical
building.
The pharmacy is a secured room within the clinic. We found boxes of expired medica-tions
on top of the counters and the floor covered with several boxes of new medications
that were not properly stored. Upon subsequent review we found that the August report
described a similar situation: “ the pharmacy contained boxes and bags of medications
stored on the floor. Many of the medications had expired, or were about to expire.”
( Review of Health Care Services in the California Youth Authority, p. 47)
The superintendent indicated to us that there was no effective means of disposal for
expired medication. However, jurors later performed an internet search and quickly
identified information regarding the availability of registered disposal companies, one of
which is based in California.
32
Findings
( 1) Expired medications are stored in the pharmacy.
( 2) Significant quantities of medications are not properly stored in the pharmacy.
Recommendations
( 1) The El Paso de Robles Youth Authority should take advantage of available
services to properly dispose of expired medications.
( 2) Pharmaceuticals should be ordered on an as- needed basis and should be
expeditiously inventoried and stored.
Conclusion
Although the management expressed an openness to Grand Jury inspection on a “ 24/ 7"
basis, a more closed, protective attitude surfaced when we asked for an unannounced
tour of the pharmacy. This response seems consistent with that mentioned in the
December General Corrections Review of the California Youth Authority report which
noted that middle management had referred to prior investigations at El Paso as “ the
witch hunt.” We would suggest that a less defensive posture toward authorized
inspections would better serve the institution.
Overall, El Paso de Robles Youth Authority provides a reasonably safe environment for
the wards, staff, and correctional officers under conditions that are frequently hostile and
dangerous. The effectiveness of local and state mandated policies and the state- wide
improvements that are needed are best addressed by the state CYA, the formal state
review panel, and ultimately the Legislature.
Required Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933 ( c), the following agencies are required to respond to the
findings and recommendations contained in this report: The El Paso de Robles Youth
Authority Youth Correctional and The California Youth Authority.
33
FLOOD CONTROL: CLOGGED BY BUREAUCRACY
AND ATTEMPTS TO TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY
Synopsis
In March of 2001, the Arroyo Grande Channel Levee section of the San
Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone
1/ 1a was breached following heavy rains. This resulted in the flooding of
several hundred acres of agricultural fields, businesses, residences and
mobile homes. These heavy damages led to claims against San Luis
Obispo County with costs totaling $ 1,289,000. The San Luis Obispo
County Board of Supervisors responded by reinstating a citizen advisory
committee to specifically oversee the Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control
District. This was the first time any citizen oversight group had met in over
20 years for that purpose.
That committee was comprised of concerned residents of the county,
many of whom were directly affected by the flood breach. The committee
found the zone did not have enough funds to meet the current
maintenance requirements. The committee also recommended a study to
identify alternative means for clearing the creek and to guard against
future flooding. To this end, the Board of Supervisors appropriated
$ 150,000 for an Alternative Analysis Study to be included in the County
Public Works budget of 2002- 2003, only to later withdraw that funding.
Origin of the Inquiry
The Grand Jury received a complaint from a county resident whose property was
damaged from flooding stemming from the way in which the creek has been maintained.
Authority of the Inquiry
According to the California Penal Code § 925: " The grand jury shall investigate and
report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions
of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative
district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law."
Method
During the course of the investigation the Grand Jury obtained its information from
several sources. The information in this report is a compilation of information received
from attending watershed forums, interviewing many county officials, both
34
elected and appointed, as well as visiting the site. Through the course of the
investigation we met with, and interviewed, the Project Manager of the Arroyo Grande
Watershed Forum, San Luis Obispo Assistant County Counsel, Executive Director of
Environment in the Public Interest, County Public Works Director, County Deputy
Director of Public Works for Engineering Services, Coastal San Luis Resource
Conservation District Board President, State Division of Flood Management Chief, and a
representative from the Environmental Defense Center. We also interviewed the
complainant on multiple occasions.
Setting
The Arroyo Grande and Los Berros Creeks, located in the South County area of Arroyo
Grande and Oceano, flow into the adjacent lowlands, much of which is, and has been,
farmland for generations. A Public Works Department map of the area is included as an
Appendix to this report. Serious floods occurred in 1969, 1983, and 1995.
For visitors, and even long time residents, the Arroyo Grande Creek is part of the charm
of the Village historical area of Arroyo Grande, but most people know very little about the
creek that flows beneath the swinging bridge on its way to the sea. The creek is one of
several that flow from higher elevations east of Arroyo Grande, in this case from Lopez
Lake. It winds naturally toward the Village with a downhill flow and levels out as it
reaches farmland in the area west of Highway 101. This relatively flat area slows the
flow of the creek. The levee, built in the 1950' s, starts in the farmland near Halcyon and
extends three miles, including lower portions of Los Berros Creek.
Early ranchers and farmers used the creek for their crops and animals, but there was
often a price to pay when flooding occurred. Documented floods go back to the year
1862 and occurred with regularity from the early 1900' s through the 1940' s. A huge crop
loss in 1952 made it apparent that a project was necessary to improve the creek's ability
to move water. In 1957, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) coordinated
construction of the Arroyo Grande Channel Improvement Project.
The high probability of future flooding exists because over the years sedimentation and
riparian growth within the creek have restricted the capacity of the stream flow. To
monitor and protect the surrounding area, the County Board of Supervisors approved
creation of flood control districts 1 and 1/ A in the late 1950s. The county attempted to
clear the waterway from time to time as the creek channel filled with soil moved from
upstream.
Over the years the process for repairing the channel was made more difficult with the
increasing number of permits needed before work could begin, the extent of work
permitted, and the time limitations for such work. Budgetary constraints further
complicate any repair project. Permits are now required from the California Coastal
Commission, the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers, the USDA, and other agencies.
Because of the complex situation, county engineers have recently coordinated permit
applications for maintaining the channel.
35
Findings
( 1) On March 27, 2003 the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors sent a
letter to the California Department of Water Resources ( DWR) advising that SLO
County was considering relinquishing responsibility for the Arroyo Grande Creek
Flood Control Channel to the state.
( 2) On March 28, 2003, a letter from Chief of the DWR Division of Flood Control
Management stated that relinquishment by San Luis Obispo County would not
resolve the issue. The letter advised that the decision on how to best proceed
should be done carefully with public dialogue.
( 3) On April 1, 2003, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors adopted
Resolution No. 2003- 105 seeking to transfer responsibility for the Arroyo Grande
Channel to the State. That item was not listed on the agenda posted at the SLO
County Board of Supervisors' website, and the item was passed as a consent
agenda item without any public input.
( 4) One week later on April 8, 2003, the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District ( RCD) Board President and staff met with SLO County Public Works
representatives. A Public Works representative informed the RCD Board
President that the $ 150,000 Alternative Analysis Study was " off the table" for the
fiscal year 2002- 2003. The county, believing that it was no longer responsible
for any damage that may occur in the coming, or following rainy seasons, then
opted not to reallocate funding for the study in the next fiscal year budget,
beginning July 1, 2003.
( 5) On June 13 the DWR Chief of Flood Control Management sent a letter to the
SLO County Department of Public Works acknowledging the receipt of SLO
County Resolution No. 2003- 105. The state then told the county that such
jurisdictional transfer couldn't even be considered before July 2004, and possibly
not until 2005 due to limited resources.
( 6) Each agency says the other has the responsibility; neither is willing to do
anything now. In the meantime, probability of floods causing serious damage to
the property owners, the public, and farmers increases significantly. Future
lawsuits and any insurance claims against the county paid out will ultimately
affect the county taxpayer.
( 7) Despite the position of the county on jurisdictional transfer, they were quick to
respond after the earthquake of December 22, 2003. The following day the
County Public Works Department contracted for repair of four earthquake-damaged
locations on the Arroyo Grande channel levee. The county still
maintains that it has turned over responsibility for maintenance and repair to the
state.
36
Conclusions
Today the creek is clogged and flows slowly between the levees through the Oceano
area, emptying into the ocean south of the vehicle entrance to the beach. Anyone
wishing to see first hand the condition of the creek can do so by visiting the 22nd Street
Bridge in Oceano. From this vantage point it is possible to look toward the mesa and
see that at one time the entire area was a wetland. Nature's power is evident, both in
what was once here, and in what is occurring today.
The Grand Jury found that the problem in addressing a waterway with protected wildlife
is compounded by the numerous permit requirements found at the state level, and those
that are even more restrictive at the federal level. Even within the same agency,
whether state or federal, there often are overlapping divisions with differing processes,
programs, and priorities.
The Grand Jury determined that the number and nature of the permits required for such
a project is dependent upon the nature of the work to be done, which, in turn, is
dependent upon the results of required scientific studies. The studies themselves are
often very costly and time- consuming. A vast and complex array of mandated public
hearings and response must be completed prior to issuance of the permits necessary for
a project to address flooding in a creek channel such as Arroyo Grande Creek.
Assuming an acceptable alternative solution is identified as a result of any required
studies, the proposed project is then dependent upon the time duration of the various
permits, the cost of the project, the availability of funding, and seasonal construction
restrictions.
In short, the permit process is so difficult, complex, costly and confusing that even the
most knowledgeable government official finds it almost impossible to decipher and
implement. Even if the agency responsible for a drainage waterway is able to identify
and undertake the necessary steps, the cost of such projects must compete with many
other capital improvement projects for that government's limited budget funds, an
important consideration in the present fiscal climate.
In the opinion of the Grand Jury, by adopting Resolution No. 2003- 105, the Board of
Supervisors attempted to absolve itself of the long term expense and aggravation of the
permit process. Following this action, the Board of Supervisors removed the $ 150,000
which had been initially budgeted for the " Alternative Analysis" study. In the opinion of
the Board of Supervisors they were no longer responsible for the creek, and so there
was no need to perform that study. This action is especially disconcerting because the
Grand Jury has been told that the county actually holds an existing permit for some work
that could be done on the Arroyo Grande Creek channel. However, the county will not
proceed with the work allowed by that permit process because, in the estimation of
County Counsel, jurisdiction of the creek maintenance was immediately transferred to
the state upon adoption of Resolution No. 2003- 105, and county action on that permit
would mitigate against the county's position that the state now has responsibility for
maintenance of the Creek.
37
In the meantime, the property owners affected by creek flooding, including the original
complainant, are left waiting and wondering if anyone will help them avoid further
damage and expense. While the state disagrees that the county transferred jurisdiction
by adoption of Resolution No. 2003- 105, the one thing both entities agree on is that an
appropriate court of authority as a result of litigation could determine maintenance
responsibility. That, however, is very small consolation to the threatened property
owners.
Many federal, state, county, Coastal Commission and related environmental permits are
required for such drainage control work. Further, the cost of any logical solution to repair
or maintain the creek channel would be better borne by an agency with sufficient
authority and resources.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers historically has had responsibility for flood control
management in the continental United States. In 1999 the Corps of Engineers performed
a preliminary evaluation for potential solutions to the Arroyo Grande flood control
problem. Therefore, the Corps may be the appropriate agency to acquire the necessary
permits and complete the necessary work to protect the property and residents in this
area.
Recommendation
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a citizens’
committee to meet with the appropriate congressional representatives to obtain their
assistance in directing the Corps of Engineers to immediately undertake a flood control
remediation project to resolve the Arroyo Grande Creek channel flooding problems.
Required Response
As required by California Penal Code Section 933 ( c), within 90 days the County Board
of Supervisors shall comment to the presiding judge on the findings and recommend-ations
in this report.
38
Appendix
39
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL
The county jail, located on Highway 1 between the cities of San Luis
Obispo and Morro Bay, is operated by the San Luis Obispo County Sher-iff’s
Department. The facility houses inmates who have been convicted
of misdemeanors or felonies, inmates who have not been sentenced, and
some who are awaiting transport to a state prison.
Authority for the Inquiry
Penal Code § 925 states, “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations,
accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county.”
Method of Inquiry
The bases for this report include a grand jury tour of the jail and a meeting and follow- up
discussions with the sheriff. Additional information reviewed for this report include
statistical data provided by members of the Sheriff’s Department, and a summary of the
Board of Corrections Biennial Inspection Report dated February 26, 2004.
Description of the Inquiry
Grand Jurors toured the county jail on October 27, 2003, accompanied by the sheriff and
a correctional lieutenant. Issues of concern include overcrowding in the women’s
section of the jail, the prevalence of inmates requiring mental health services, and
inmate safety cells.
Jail - Women’s section
The California Board of Corrections ( BOC) conducts biennial inspections of the jail, in
accordance with Penal Code § 6031. The approved board rated capacity of the jail is for
412 male and 41 female inmates. However, there are currently 75 beds in the women’s
areas. The cells and dormitory units we observed were not only crowded, but the single
cells contained two beds and some prisoners were required to sleep on mattresses on
the floor. The average daily population of female prisoners in 2003 was 62. During the
months of October and November 2003, there were nine days when the female
population was over 80, peaking at 89 on October 23.
The February, 2004 BOC inspection of the jail found the women’s jail facilities, including
the female single cells, dorm and honor farm “... continue to remain out of compliance
with Title 24 regulations due to the beds placed in these areas” ( 2/ 26/ 04 BOC letter to
40
Sheriff Hedges). This finding was also reported in the 2001 BOC inspection. Previous
Grand Jury reports have recommended that this problem be addressed.
According to the Sheriff’s Department, funds for expansion of the women’s facilities have
been requested through the County’s Capital Improvement Project process each year
since fiscal year 1990- 91. The county budget office confirmed that expansion of the
women’s jail is included in a master plan for development of the jail site, and that
$ 694,000 was included in the 1999- 2000 budget for design work on the project. At the
start of the 2003- 2004 fiscal year, there was $ 562,000 remaining of this approved
amount.
Mental health
An increasing percentage of the jail inmate population is in need of mental health
services. The Sheriff’s Department cites the County Mental Health staff estimates that
30 percent of the inmates are receiving medication or counseling for mental health
issues. To address these issues, the Sheriff’s Department is partially funding a mental
heath therapist located at the jail. The department also reports that, in conjunction with
the Mental Health Department, it has initiated a program that provides inmates with a ten
day supply of medication upon their release from the jail. In addition, the Sheriff’s
Department is active in the county’s Homeless Task Force which is seeking to address
the problem within current systems, rather than create additional organizational
overhead and expense.
Cameras in safety cells
Previous Grand Juries have recommended that cameras be placed in the jail cells where
suicide- prone inmates are housed. The Sheriff’s Department August 2000 response to
this recommendation stated that this was not necessary since they had been successful
with their existing program for monitoring suicide- prone inmates. The department later
explained that an exposed video camera in the cell could become a suicide risk factor.
We inspected these cells during our tour of the jail and expressed concern that a small
window in the door was the only means of visually monitoring the inmate. In subsequent
discussions with the Grand Jury, the sheriff confirmed that current technology would
allow enclosed cameras to be installed in the cells, and that he is exploring funding to
acquire them.
Conclusion
The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury reported on the overcrowding in the women’s jail and
recommended that the sheriff act to correct the situation. We join them in highlighting
this unacceptable situation. Without funding and county action, however, the Sheriff’s
Department cannot expand the facility. It is the responsibility of the Board of Supervi-sors
and the county to move quickly beyond the design stage to implement a solution to
this ongoing problem.
41
The Sheriff’s Department appears to effectively operate and maintain a secure facility
with limited resources. They are to be commended for their efforts in coordinating with
the Mental Health Department to provide services to the increasing number of inmates
who require counseling and/ or medication. We also commend the sheriff for working
toward adding enclosed cameras in the safety cells. Given the increased inmate
population with mental health issues, it would be reasonable to expect that the number
of inmates with suicidal tendencies would also increase.
The jail staff, who are not trained mental health professionals, are likely to feel additional
stress in working with the mentally ill population in the jail. We encourage the depart-ment
to work with the Mental Health Department and to identify other resources in order
to provide the jail staff with appropriate training in working with mentally ill inmates.
Required Response
This is an informational report. No formal response to this 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
43
THE SAFETY AND BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN?
AN INQUIRY INTO CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
Synopsis
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury received multiple complaints against the San
Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services ( DSS). These complaints
accused the Child Welfare Services ( CWS) division of failing to provide for
the safety and stability of children who are at risk of abuse and/ or neglect.
Investigation of the complaints led us to examine several CWS systems.
Our investigation focused on two areas where CWS has important responsi-bilities:
the county system for reporting and investigating suspected child
abuse, and the processes involved in the placement of children who have
been removed from their homes. We found problems in both systems that
involve lack of communication and coordination with related agencies. In re-porting
child abuse, CWS fails to provide law enforcement and the district at-torney
with required, timely information. In Juvenile Court cases concerning
the placement of children, CWS acts to keep information and other profes-sionals
who work with the children outside of the process.
While confidentiality is of the utmost importance in child welfare and court
cases, the same confidentiality that is supposed to protect these children is
used to prevent related agencies from communicating with CWS and the
court. There appears to be little or no accountability as to how CWS arrives
at many important decisions. Grand Jury members received specialized
training and were allowed access to confidential CWS case information. We
question whether the court is receiving all of the relevant information, or even
the correct information.
We also reviewed the CWS organization in our effort to understand its situa-tion.
We found an organization that is faced with enormous challenges,
many of which are inherent in the work it performs. There are currently
added pressures from California mandated changes and budgetary con-cerns.
The most difficult obstacle to overcome, however, may be the distrust
between social workers and upper management at CWS. Unless this prob-lem
is addressed, it is questionable whether CWS can effectively meet its
other challenges.
44
Origin of the Investigation
This investigation began as a result of a complaint that was accepted by the 2002- 2003
Grand Jury. The complaint alleged that the Department of Social Services, Child Welfare
Services division, failed to protect and to act in the best interest of two children. After initial
review late in its term, the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury assessed that the complaint may under-score
more serious problems within the department. Because of the time constraints, that
Grand Jury forwarded the complaint to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury for our consideration.
Upon review of the forwarded complaint, we accepted it as the first case of the 2003- 2004
Grand Jury.
By March 2004 we had received similar complaints and allegations involving 17 CWS cases,
16 families and 38 children. The allegations against CWS cover a range of issues, including
failure to respond to reports of child abuse and neglect, and inappropriate actions in foster
care and adoption cases. As we investigated each case, several themes emerged that
shaped our investigation and this report. The central question that we address in this report
is, does CWS effectively implement systems that protect the safety and best interest of chil-dren?
Authority for the Investigation
Our authority to pursue the investigation is pursuant to Section 925 of the California Penal
Code that states, “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts,
and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county.@ The Department of So-cial
Services is a county agency under the purview of the Board of Supervisors, and Child
Welfare Services is a division within that agency.
Overview: Child Welfare Services
This investigation focuses on the Child Welfare Services ( CWS) division of the San Luis
Obispo County Department of Social Services ( DSS). Within the county structure, the Board
of Supervisors appoints the DSS Director. Leland Collins has held this position since August
of 2000. DSS provides services under three main categories: Aid Programs, Adult Protec-tive
Services, and Child Welfare Services. Since the time of Mr. Collins= appointment as
DSS Director, the CWS division has been under the direction of Deputy Director Debby
Jeter.
The DSS budget derives its revenues from allocations of state and federal funds, special
grants, and county funds. The approved 2003- 2004 DSS budget includes expenditures of
$ 74.26 million, of which about 65 percent is for DSS administration and 35 percent is for di-rect
benefit payments. The county General Fund Support for the DSS 2003- 2004 budget
was originally approved at $ 3.53 million, although in January, 2004 this amount was in-creased
by nearly $ 2 million. The increases were attributed to the complex funding and state
reimbursement for CWS services. With the budget adjustments that were approved in May,
the total General Fund Support for the 2003- 2004 DSS budget was $ 6.97 million.
45
The major programs implemented through CWS are under the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Social Services and are regulated by California= s Penal Code ( PC), Welfare
and Institutions Code, and Health and Safety Code. The county receives federal funds for
CWS programs, along with the federal regulatory requirements, from the state DSS. The
California DSS Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 31 Child Welfare Services Pro-gram,
is the primary operating manual governing CWS programs. Local CWS policies and
procedures define specific implementation and practices in San Luis Obispo County. During
the last year, CWS has been compiling local procedures as ADesk Guides@ for workers to
access via the departmental intranet.
The county= s 2003 DSS Public Information Report states, AThe goal of Child Welfare Ser-vices
is to provide for the safety and stability of children who are at risk of abuse or neglect@
( March, 2004 p. 16). CWS services are listed in the following categories: Early Intervention/
Emergency Response, Family Maintenance Voluntary/ Family Preservation, Family Mainte-nance
Court Ordered, Family Reunification, and Permanency Planning. The work of CWS
involves receiving and responding to reports of child abuse or neglect, working with families
to facilitate effective parenting and safe environments for children, and, when necessary,
removing children from their homes and finding alternative placements for them.
The Juvenile Court, a division of the California Superior Court, has jurisdiction when CWS
takes a child from parents or legal guardians. CWS must petition the court to detain, take
custody, and/ or place children in foster care or other placements. Recommendations and
placement plans are developed by CWS and submitted for court review and approval. In
this capacity, CWS plays an important role in providing the critical information on which the
court bases its decisions.
The DSS Public Information Report also describes 15 Ainnovative practices and initiatives@
that CWS has implemented in its efforts to keep children safe. Many of these initiatives
have been in response to, or in anticipation of, social work benchmarks and state priorities.
Since 1998, standards of excellence in social services have been referred to as Best Prac-tices
and CWS has sought special funding in support of local implementation. Recently,
many such standards have been incorporated as state mandates and performance goals in
the California Child Welfare Services Redesign ( generally referred to as ARedesign@). 1
This statewide Redesign, which is being implemented from 2004 through 2007, also re-quires
major systems changes in local CWS operations. The state has selected San Luis
Obispo as one of the counties that will receive special funding as Aearly implementers@ of
the Redesign. CWS will receive a total of $ 2.85 million beyond its normal allocated state
funding over the next four years. The first $ 300,000 was accepted in January 2004, and the
remaining payments are to be distributed annually through fiscal year 2007- 2008.
A central component of the Redesign is the legislatively mandated statewide accountability
and monitoring system ( Assembly Bill 636), which involves tracking performance measures.
The online California CWS Case Management System ( CWS/ CMS), which the county CWS
has been phasing in over the past five years, enables the state to track county performance.
The system can also be used to track individual social worker performance.
46
State mandates and local initiatives in recent years have required county CWS employees to
learn, implement, and adapt to a myriad of changes. They also must provide vital services
with fewer staff. DSS has had a hiring freeze in place since May 2002, resulting in more
than 70 unfilled positions in 2004. In addition, in January 2004, the Board of Supervisors
approved the elimination of temporary CWS employees and of 18.5 permanent positions,
including two of the five senior management jobs.
Methods of Investigation
Our efforts to identify actions and behaviors that led to the complaints against CWS involved
conducting interviews, reviewing CWS case files, and examining various documents. We
conducted 37 individual interviews at the Grand Jury office, each lasting from one to three
hours. Interviewees included complainants, social service professionals, mandated report-ers,
lawyers, court commissioners, and current and former CWS managers, supervisors,
and social workers. A minimum of five Grand Jury members participated in each interview,
although there were typically eight to ten jurors present. The majority of the interviews were
tape recorded for the review of other jurors and for later reference. In addition to these
Grand Jury office interviews, we visited several law enforcement agencies to talk with offi-cers
over the course of our investigation. At least two jurors participated in each of these
visits.
Because of the sensitive nature of CWS cases, confidentiality, by law, is at a high level. All
jurors received special training in confidentiality from Office of County Counsel attorneys
prior to having access to confidential information or to CWS files. Discussions of cases and
our review of CWS files was completed in accordance with a Standing Order of the Superior
Court, as revised during the period of our investigation. At least two jurors reviewed each
file. Other documents reviewed for this investigation included the California Penal Code and
Welfare and Institutions Code, state and local agency publications, presentation handouts
and budget summaries, and correspondence and documentation provided by complainants
and related parties. When information in this report is derived from public information, the
source is indicated.
The range of issues that surfaced in the course of this investigation resulted in three areas
of focus that are developed in the remainder of this report. We have identified findings and
recommendations under each section, and include our concluding remarks at the end of the
report. This report includes the following sections:
I. Suspected Child Abuse Reports
II. CWS Placement Cases and Issues
III. Organizational Issues
IV. Concluding Remarks and Response Requirements
47
l. Suspected Child Abuse Reports
The focus of this section is the system used for reporting child abuse in California and its
implementation in San Luis Obispo County. We first review the legal requirements and then
discuss local processes.
The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, California Penal Code ' 11164 et. seq., is in-tended
to protect children from abuse. Many sections of the Penal Code and the Welfare
and Institution Code support this act and in many instances the section numbers of the two
codes are the same. Both law enforcement and Child Welfare Services ( CWS) play impor-tant
roles in ensuring compliance with the law.
SCAR is the acronym for Suspected Child Abuse Report, a Department of Justice form that
is used to report suspected physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse, and severe or gen-eral
neglect. Any person can make a report, but mandated reporters are required by law to
complete a SCAR form. Mandated reporters generally include any person who has direct or
indirect contact with children. Penal Code ' 11165.7, included here as Appendix A, identi-fies
legally designated mandated reporters, and a copy of the SCAR form is provided in Ap-pendix
B. All employers of mandated reporters are required by law to inform their employ-ees
about the requirements for reporting child abuse.
Mandated reporters are required to submit a SCAR whenever the reporters, in their profes-sional
capacity or within the scope of employment, have knowledge of, observe, or reasona-bly
suspect a child has been the victim of abuse or neglect. These suspicions are to be re-ported
immediately or as soon as possible by telephone to any police or sheriff's department
or to the county child welfare services. The SCAR form containing information concerning
the incident must be sent to the agency that was telephoned within 36 hours. As specified in
the instructions printed on the reverse side of the form, color specific copies are to be dis-tributed
to child welfare services, the local law enforcement agency, and the district attor-ney=
s office. The fourth copy is for reporting parties to keep for their record.
The report flow shown in Figure 1 is designed to ensure that all interested agencies are noti-fied
in order to initiate their investigations. The Penal Code specifies penalties for failure to
follow the designated procedures. A mandated reporter who fails to report any suspected
child abuse or neglect A... is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in a
county jail or by a fine of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) or by both fine and punishment@ ( PC
' 11166). The section further states A... any supervisor or administrator who violates or hin-ders
the distribution of the SCAR is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed
five thousand dollars ($ 5,000)@ ( PC ' 11166.01).
The purpose of requiring the distribution of the four part handwritten form is to ensure that all
appropriate investigative agencies are provided with original information. Any agency receiv-ing
a SCAR must accept it. When an agency receives a report for which it lacks jurisdiction,
the agency must immediately evaluate it and refer the applicable cases by telephone, fax, or
electronic transmission to the agency with proper jurisdiction.
48
Initiates
SCAR
Mandated
Reporter
CWS
Law enforcement District Attorney
Department of
Justice
Investigation
CWS/ CMS
Founded?
Yes Yes
Juvenile Court
Investigation Investigation
Suspected Child Abuse
Report ( SCAR)
Investigation
Yes
Delete
No
End
Abuse? Abuse?
No
Process flow in accordance with
Penal Code and Welfare and
Institution Codes
Law enforcement
as a Mandated
Reporter
District Attorney
as a Mandated
Reporter
CWS as a
Mandated
Reporter
Figure 1
49
The intent of the law is to ensure a multi- agency involvement process. The goal is for all in-formation
to be cross checked so that no child falls through the cracks of the process, and
that independent investigative reports are available to the courts.
SCARs in San Luis Obispo County
The issue of SCARs was brought to the Grand Jury= s attention when two mandated report-ers
filed a complaint asking us to follow up on why investigations were not initiated after they
had properly filled out and sent a SCAR to the county Child Welfare Services. This
prompted the part of this investigation that involved reviewing the distribution of SCAR forms
in our county.
In following up on the initial and subsequent complaints, we reviewed 17 CWS files involving
38 children. We found 44 SCAR forms that had been completed in the last three years,
mostly by mandated reporters. Thirty- five of the forms still included the copies intended for
distribution to law enforcement and the district attorney. In only one of the files was there
indication that the mandated reporter was sent an acknowledgment as required by the proc-ess.
Upon investigation, we learned that since August 2000, CWS has been initiating a comput-erized
CWS/ CMS version of the SCAR when they receive a report of suspected child abuse
that meets their criteria for action. Copies of that version of the SCAR are distributed to law
enforcement and the district attorney when required. A result of this practice is that in most
cases, the other agencies do not see the originally submitted SCAR that may contain infor-mation
that is not included on the CWS form. In instances when the original form is also
submitted, either by a mandated reporter or CWS, the result is that other agencies are re-ceiving
duplicate reports. An effective approach, which we found used in a few instances,
was CWS attaching the agency copy of the original SCAR to the CWS form they distribute.
Local CWS procedures are currently being developed as ADesk Guides@ for electronic distri-bution
to employees through the county DSS internal network. The working ADraft CWS
Desk Guide Subject: Intake Referral@ ( Draft Revised 7/ 17/ 03) calls for systematic distribution
of the reports as depicted in Figure 2.
We noted that the Desk Guide does not specify that a copy of the SCAR must be distributed
to the district attorney when it alleges physical or sexual abuse or severe neglect. While we
confirmed that the district attorney= s office does receive some copies of CWS generated
SCARs, it is difficult to know whether they are consistently distributed as required by law.
There is also a delay in receiving the reports from CWS. Even with the Desk Guide in place,
we identified additional areas of concern related to CWS communication with mandated re-porters
and the coordination with law enforcement.
Mandated Reporters
Many of the SCARs that we reviewed had been determined to be unsubstantiated or un-founded
by CWS. An unsubstantiated designation means that not enough evidence was
50
Initiates
SCAR
Mandated
Reporter
CWS
Investigation
CWS/ CMS
Juvenile Court
Suspected Child Abuse
Report ( SCAR)
Figure 2
Case carrying SW
SW’s Supervisor Licensing/ Approval supervisor
Placement supervisor
All CWS Division Managers
DSS SCAR
form
Case carrying SW
SW’s Supervisor Licensing/ Approval supervisor
Placement supervisor
All CWS Division Managers
Law Enforcement
Case carrying Social Worker’s ( SW) Supervisor
Licensing/ Approval supervisor
Placement supervisor
All CWS Division Managers
Law Enforcement
District Attorney
Distribution in accordance
with Desk Guide
Typical distribution
Internal distribution only
Process flow in accordance with the
San Luis Obispo CWS Desk Guide
and actual practices
51
found to support the allegation. In an unfounded determination, CWS has found no evi-dence
or basis for the accusation.
Several mandated reporters questioned how these determinations had been made. In many
cases, it appeared to this Grand Jury and to law enforcement agencies that there was
enough documentation to warrant further investigation or another conclusion. One example
is a SCAR submitted by mandated reporters that included statements and evidence from a
doctor, teachers, psychologists, and even a child= s drawing to substantiate their accusations.
Even with this supporting documentation, the SCAR was deemed to be unsubstantiated by
CWS. When asked how this conclusion had been determined, CWS told the mandated re-porters
that the information could not be shared due to confidentiality.
Law Enforcement
In our interviews with law enforcement, we learned that in some agencies the dispatchers
routinely receive calls from CWS when suspected child abuse is reported. Other agencies
reported that they do not receive calls as often as they should. This call is important be-cause
it allows the law enforcement agency to respond quickly. Failure to receive immediate
notice delays law enforcement investigations. Important evidence such as bruising and
markings may be lost, the information provided by the victim and suspect may change, and
one or the other of them may leave town.
The reporting process is designed for the telephone reports to be followed by a copy of the
CWS/ CMS version of the SCAR form in cases of physical or sexual abuse. Each law en-forcement
agency has developed its own system for matching the reports they receive by
telephone with the corresponding paper work. In cases where there was no call received,
the SCAR may be the first time law enforcement was made aware of the suspected abuse.
Problems also occur in the paper flow from CWS. SCAR forms are often distributed by
CWS to the wrong law enforcement agency. This puts an extra burden on the receiving
agency to re- route the SCAR, particularly since some receive up to 70 per month.
A related issue is the delivery time. The Penal Code is clear that a written SCAR must be
sent within 36 real ( consecutive) hours to the agency that receives a telephone report. In
many cases, we found the CWS initiated SCAR was not filled out until several days after the
initial call. After it has been processed by CWS, it was another three to five working days,
often more than a week, before the law enforcement agencies and the district attorney= s of-fice
received their copies. The county agencies that we interviewed received the written
SCARs from CWS through the county= s inter- office mail system.
Findings
( 1) CWS is not sending a written SCAR within 36 hours of receiving reports of abuse or
severe neglect to the agency to which it made a telephone report in accordance with
Penal Code ' 11165.7( h). Law enforcement and the district attorney= s office are re-ceiving
the SCARs longer than three days and frequently more than a week later.
52
( 2) Some law enforcement agencies do not receive immediate telephone calls on inci-dents
for which they later receive a SCAR.
( 3) The CWS Desk Guide instructions do not specify that a SCAR is to be distributed to
the district attorney as required in PC ' 11165.12 ( c).
( 4) When CWS determines that reports of sexual and physical abuse and severe ne-glect
are unfounded or unsubstantiated, they do not distribute the written SCAR to
the appropriate agencies. This appears to be in violation of PC ' 11166.
( 5) Some law enforcement agencies are receiving SCARs that are not within their juris-diction
and must forward them to the appropriate agency. This is a time consuming
activity and hinders the timely investigation by the appropriate agency.
( 6) Some law enforcement agencies are receiving duplicate copies of SCARs, one initi-ated
by the mandated reporter and one initiated by the CMS/ CWS. Receiving dupli-cate
SCARs for the same incident can be confusing and time consuming for the law
enforcement agency.
( 7) When a SCAR decision is made regarding a referral from a mandated reporter,
CWS does not consistently send an acknowledgment of the outcome to the reporting
party.
( 8) Training for mandated reporters of child abuse and members of the child welfare
delivery system is not regularly provided, as required in PC ' 16206.
( 9) CWS reporting and coordination is not consistent among law enforcement agencies.
Recommendations
( 1) CWS should ensure that the appropriate law enforcement agency is immediately
telephoned when CWS receives a report of child abuse or severe neglect.
( 2) CWS should ensure that SCARs are distributed to the appropriate law enforcement
agency and the district attorney. The CWS Desk Guides and internal procedures
should be corrected to reflect this.
( 3) CWS should complete and forward a written SCAR to the appropriate agencies
within 36 consecutive hours.
( 4) The law enforcement copy of a SCAR should be forwarded to the correct law en-forcement
agency.
( 5) CWS should attach the appropriate copy of the original SCAR form to CWS/ CMS
SCAR forms they distribute to law enforcement and the district attorney.
53
( 6) CWS should notify mandated reporters of the outcome of the SCARs that they sub-mitted.
( 7) CWS should take a leadership role in promoting training for mandated reporters.
( 8) CWS should review agreements on SCAR reporting with all law enforcement agen-cies
within the county to ensure consistent practices and coordination on a regular
basis.
( 9) County inter- office mail should not be used for delivery of time- sensitive information.
II. CWS Placement Cases and Issues
Perhaps the most difficult decision CWS social workers must make is to remove a child from
his or her home. This is the least preferred outcome within the context of U. S. social values.
Nevertheless, in some instances the protection of a child requires removal. This section fo-cuses
on the complaints the Grand Jury received involving the placement of these children.
When children must be taken from their homes, CWS places them in protective custody. A
Juvenile Court hearing is required within two court days requesting permission to detain the
child, and a detention hearing is held the next court day. When the court determines that
out- of- home care is necessary, the child is typically placed in foster care and placement
planning is initiated. Of the 17 cases that the Grand Jury reviewed, all but two involved
placement issues.
Child Welfare Services submits reports and recommended placement plans to the Juvenile
Court for review. A county attorney ( County Counsel) represents CWS in court, and the
court assures that all other parties to the case, including the children, have legal representa-tion.
A Juvenile Court ruling determines the placement of children. However, CWS is the
conduit and often the screener of the information that the court receives. Several of the
complaints that we received were from other agency professionals who had been frustrated
in their efforts to have their positions represented in the reports and recommendations that
CWS submitted to the court.
State and local policies are clear that the order of preference for permanent placement of
children is: family reunification, adoption, guardianship, and long term foster care. This pri-oritization
is reflected in the social work Best Practices, which have defined policy for many
CWS decisions in recent years. Currently, the state Redesign and AB 636 in effect mandate
this prioritization of placements. 2
Fifteen of the cases that we reviewed involved children who had been removed from their
homes and placed in out- of- home care for some period. In most of these cases CWS efforts
were proceeding toward the goal of family reunification. The common concern among the
complainants was that CWS continued to recommend reunification as a goal, even when it
appeared this was detrimental to the safety and the best interest of the children.
54
The cases that we reviewed provide a glimpse of the complex and difficult work of CWS and
the Juvenile Court. These cases represent a small percentage of the total CWS caseload.
They came to our attention, however, because people who were involved with the children
were so concerned for the children’s welfare and safety, and so frustrated with the place-ment
process or outcome, that they felt they had no other recourse.
Case Reviews
We present an overview of the facts and issues that led to our findings and recommenda-tions
by summarizing some of the cases we reviewed. This is sensitive information that is
protected by laws regarding confidentiality. Therefore, specific details and identifying infor-mation,
such as names, dates, and location, have been omitted. We have provided this in-formation
to the Superior Court and, with the permission of the Presiding Judge, to CWS. It
is not our intent to second guess decisions by social workers who were directly involved in
these cases.
Several of the cases, including our initial investigation, focused on children with develop-mental
disabilities. We begin with discussion of the initial case and related issues. We then
summarize additional cases with placement goals of reunification and adoption. The final
case we present involves the death of a minor while in the protective custody of CWS.
While each case is presented under a specific category for emphasis, many involve issues
from multiple categories.
Developmentally Disabled Children
The first case, discussed below, and five subsequent cases that came to our attention in-volved
developmentally disabled children. The complainants are professionals who worked
closely with these children. Each case is unique, but in all cases the concerns were that
CWS failed to understand the special needs of the children, and did not involve those with
expertise either in working with the children or in developing plans and recommendations to
the court.
The Tri- Counties Regional Center ( TCRC) is the local agency serving developmentally dis-abled
children and adults, under a contract with the state. In cases where developmentally
disabled children have been found to be neglected or abused, they are served jointly by
TCRC and CWS. According to TCRC, “ Children and adults are eligible [ for services] who
are substantially handicapped due to conditions falling within the legal definitions of ‘ devel-opmental
disability.’ These conditions are mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and
autism. Or the person may have a condition closely related to mental retardation which re-quires
similar treatment.” 3 TCRC case workers are experienced in working with the devel-opmentally
disabled and their families, and TCRC can pay for resources to serve them.
Developmentally disabled children often require special medical and therapeutic services to
address physical and emotional problems. Some are delayed in developing motor skills and
abilities, such as dressing, toileting, feeding, etc. Depending on the nature of their disability,
many of these children have difficulty communicating and expressing themselves. Special
education teachers and support staff within the public school systems have expertise in
55
working with developmentally disabled children. They are also most likely to notice changes
in the health and behavior of children with whom they work closely, often over several years.
Case The first complaint to this Grand Jury alleged that CWS was emphasizing a
goal of family reunification long after there was evidence that it was not in the
best interest of two developmentally disabled children. These children began
their Juvenile Court dependen

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

June 2004
To the People of San Luis Obispo County
This Final Report is presented to you by the 2003- 2004 San Luis Obispo County Grand
Jury. It is the compilation of the major inquiries conducted during our service.
Each July the Superior Court for the County of San Luis Obispo impanels a Grand Jury
to serve through the following June. Thirty candidates, including up to ten holdovers
from the previous jury, are nominated by Judges of the Superior Court. The names, mi-nus
holdovers, are then drawn in a lottery- type process. The first nineteen, including
holdovers, are sworn in and constitute the Grand Jury. Eleven alternates are chosen in
the order in which they are drawn. At the filing of this report, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury
consists of seventeen jurors, including three who were originally chosen as alternates.
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury represents a wide range of ages, from a young Cal Poly sen-ior
political science major, to residents well into their retirement. Our education and
experience includes retired teachers, farmers, executives, a social worker, an employed
technician, professionals, and a retired city manager, professor, and law enforcement
officer. Most of the county geographical areas were represented. The commonality
among jurors was the commitment and responsibility to the citizens of the county they
represented. For many of us, serving as jurors was a significant education on how local
government functions. It was also an opportunity to provide recommendations, where
appropriate, for improvements.
Each juror participated on two committees that met at least weekly, and more often as
the year progressed. The committees were: County, City, Law & Justice, and Health &
Social Services. We also held weekly general session meetings, where the committees
provided status reports and the Grand Jury deliberated on voting matters. A quorum of
at least 12 members was always present for official voting.
Our inquiries were initiated by citizen complaints or by a juror, committee, or the Grand
Jury as a whole. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury received nearly eight hundred citizen com-plaints
concerning fifty different issues. These complaints were first referred to the
appropriate committee to review and to conduct a preliminary investigation. If the com-plaint
met the established criteria, the committee would recommend that the Grand Jury
authorize further investigation.
Many complaints did not require action beyond the initial review. In some cases these
complaints were not within our county or civil jurisdiction, or we determined that the is-sues
could best be resolved through other avenues. Other reasons we did not pursue a
complaint included: the matter was currently in the legal process, it was received too late
in our term, or, in the judgment of the Grand Jury, it was not in the best interest of the
community to pursue.
Grand Jury work was not confined to the jury offices. As you will read in our reports, ju-rors
conducted numerous on- site inspections, including the required reviews of the
California Men’s Colony and the El Paso de Robles Youth Authority. We also met with
many department heads, and visited the San Luis Obispo County Jail, Juvenile Hall, and
Office of Emergency Services. Toward the end of our term, we toured the PG& E Diablo
Canyon Power Plant.
In the course of our investigations, we interviewed more than 70 witnesses. We thank
all those who contributed their time and energy in providing important information to us.
The offices of both the District Attorney and County Counsel provided significant legal
guidance for our investigations. Their responsiveness and thoroughness was greatly ap-preciated.
The California Penal Code requires that the Grand Jury submit a Final Report to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court prior to the end of its term. As required, the judge
approved this report prior to its publication.
For a report that includes findings and recommendations, elected county officers and
heads of county agencies and departments must reply to the Presiding Judge within 60
days. The governing bodies of other public agencies, concerning matters under their
control, must respond within 90 days.
The required responses are specified in Penal Code § 933.05, as follows:
( a) ... as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate
one of the following:
( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which
case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed
and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
( b) ... as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity
shall report one of the following actions:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be imple-mented
in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and
the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of
the public agency when applicable. The timeframe shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Agency, Board of Supervisors, and other responses to Grand Jury findings and recom-mendations
are required to be on file with the clerk of the public agency, the office of the
county clerk, and the currently impaneled Grand Jury. We anticipate that the responses
to this report will be available on the Grand Jury web site by the end of this year.
1
VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE
TABLED ON DEPUTY DA’S TABLE
Synopsis
On the evening of September 7, 2002, the Grover Beach Police Depart-ment
responded to the report of an accident involving a vehicle and two
pedestrians crossing Grand Avenue at Fifth Street. This accident caused
one pedestrian fatality. The police investigated and sent their report to
the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's Office. The District Attor-ney's
Office did not file any charges against the driver or reject the case,
and, after six months, sent the case to the Attorney General's Office for its
review. The Attorney General also declined to file charges and returned
the case to the District Attorney's Office on August 26, 2003. Later, two
deputies from the Attorney General’s Office came to our Grand Jury office
to present their reasons for declining to file charges against the driver.
This Grand Jury report examines the handling of the case by the Grover
Beach Police Department and the San Luis Obispo County District Attor-ney.
Key issues include: 1) the time taken to process the case in the Dis-trict
Attorney's Office, 2) why it was transferred to the California State At-torney
General's Office, 3) the time the case was held at the Attorney
General's Office, and 4) why and how the District Attorney finally filed the
charge after the Attorney General's rejection. California law requires the
prosecuting attorney to file charges in a misdemeanor manslaughter case
within one year of the victim's death; otherwise, the statute of limitation
prevents filing and prosecution. The Grand Jury, knowing of the ap-proaching
statute of limitation deadline, made this investigation a top pri-ority.
It was not until September 5, 2003 that the District Attorney filed
one charge of misdemeanor manslaughter.
Why the Grand Jury Investigated
In August 2003, the parents of the fatally injured girl petitioned the Grand Jury to explore
why the District Attorney's Office did not act. The family had been frustrated in their
attempts to receive information about the status of the case, and later, by the Attorney
General's decision not to file. The concerned family and others submitted 704 com-plaints
to the Grand Jury requesting an investigation, the first arriving on August 14,
2003. The family sought to motivate action because the impending September 11, 2003
expiration of the statute of limitation would prevent any subsequent criminal prosecution.
2
Authority
The Grand Jury exercises its authority to investigate the San Luis Obispo County District
Attorney under Penal Code 925, which states " The grand jury shall investigate and
report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions
of the county" and for the Grover Beach Police Department under Penal Code 925a,
which authorizes the investigation of city departments. The last two parts of this report
are informational only, and are included to help the reader make the bridge between the
case leaving, then returning to the county.
Background
A traffic accident occurred in Grover Beach that resulted in the death of a 17- year- old
girl. Typically, in a case of a traffic accident resulting in a fatality, the law enforcement
agency of the local jurisdiction where the accident occurred conducts a comprehensive
investigation of the accident scene, the vehicle, and any persons who were involved or
witnessed the event. After assessing the information compiled, the local agency then
forwards its report, along with any recommended charges, to the County District
Attorney's ( DA) Office for review of the file, any necessary additional investigation, and a
decision whether or not to file charges against any participants. If the DA's Office feels
that charges are appropriate and a reasonable chance exists to sustain the charges, the
DA will file the determined charges with the appropriate court of law.
The DA is elected by the voters of the county to a four- year term to lead the county's
prosecuting agency. Due to the volume of misdemeanor and felony cases forwarded to
the DA's Office by local law enforcement agencies each year, the DA employs a staff of
deputy DAs to assist with review and prosecution of cases. Among these are a chief
deputy who serves to oversee the deputies; a filing deputy responsible for case review
and filing of the less serious, or misdemeanor cases; and a filing deputy for the more
serious felony cases. The filing deputies must make the decision whether or not to file
charges before the statute of limitation expires. Once it expires, the opportunity to
prosecute ends, regardless of the merit of the charges or the ability to successfully
prosecute the case. When the filing of a case involving injury or death occurs, the Victim
Witness ( VW) Division of the DA's Office is notified. VW then assigns a staff advocate to
provide assistance and support to the victim and/ or family throughout the process of
prosecution.
When a valid or perceived conflict of interest exists, the DA's Office may request a
review by the Attorney General's ( AG) Office. The AG's Office also employs a staff of
deputies and assistants to handle the review and prosecution of cases. If, in the opinion
of the AG's staff attorneys, sufficient grounds exist to file charges and a reasonable
chance for prosecution exists, the AG's Office will file charges in an appropriate court.
Generally, if the AG's Office determines that grounds are insufficient, the case is closed
and the matter ends.
3
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury requested, in some cases subpoenaed, copies of the police file, the
driver's previous driving history, his court and probation records, and his insurance claim
pertaining to this accident. Some of the documents gathered for the investigation
include the District Attorney's Protocol Addressing Conflict of Interest and Case
Management and Complaint Filing Procedures. In addition we obtained Victim Witness
notes, various correspondence, attendance sheets, and workload records for the
Misdemeanor Filing Deputy District Attorney ( Filing Deputy). The Jury also examined
minutes of the Pension Trust Fund meetings for the past five years, Pension Trust Fund
travel and expense vouchers for that Filing Deputy and the Tax Collector who is the
father of the driver involved in the accident. We then reviewed the above materials,
which precipitated our need to question individuals on several matters.
The jury conducted interviews with police officers from the Grover Beach and Pismo
Beach departments who responded to the accident. We interviewed many District
Attorney personnel to learn what actually transpired in the District Attorney's Office after
the police report was submitted. We questioned the intake secretary, the Filing Deputy,
the Chief Deputy District Attorney, three other deputy district attorneys, the information
technology lead programmer, and three victim witness advocates including the Victim
Witness Director who had talked with the family. In all interviews conducted, the GJ
placed the witnesses under oath and admonished them not to discuss the proceedings
with anyone else. At least nine jurors were present at each interview, and the proceed-ings
were tape recorded for later reference and review by the jurors who were not able
to attend. Some of these interviews were transcribed by one of the jurors for clarification
of the facts.
Members of the Grand Jury visited the location of the accident at night, observed the
scene, the lighting, and even crossed the street using the same crosswalk. Later, two
deputies from the Attorney General's Office came to our Grand Jury Office to present
their reasons for declining to file charges against the driver.
We developed this report for the public after reviewing the information extracted from a
myriad of sources. We have organized the data chronologically within each section as
much as possible. The investigative Parts 1 and 2 detail the events by numerical order.
The informational sections, Parts 3 and 4, use the narrative form. Acronyms will be used
throughout the report for convenience. The following table of acronyms will help the
reader.
4
Acronyms Used
AG California Attorney General
AGH Arroyo Grande Hospital
DA San Luis Co. District
Attorney
GB Grover Beach
GBPD Grover Beach Police Dept
GJ San Luis Co. Grand Jury
MAIT Calif. Highway Patrol's
Multidisciplinary Accident
Investigation Team
PB Pismo Beach
SLO San Luis Obispo
VW Victim Witness
Part One: Grover Beach Police Department ( GBPD)' s accident investigation
Part Two: San Luis Obispo County District Attorney ( DA)' s Office processing and
Victim Witness ( VW) handling of the case
A) Communication within DA staff and filing conflicts:
What went on in the DA's Office?
B) Case remains in the DA's Office for six months without a decision to file or
reject: How could " shelving" of the file go unnoticed for six months?
C) Victim Witness involvement: How could the VW Office better assist the
family?
Part Three: Transfer of the case to the California Attorney General ( AG) Office
Part Four: The District Attorney reclaims the case. AG Office relinquishes the case
to the SLO DA Office and DA files the charge of vehicular manslaughter
without gross negligence.
5
PART ONE
Grover Beach Police Department Investigates
Facts:
( 1) Two teenage female pedestrians were crossing Grand Avenue northbound at 5th
Street in Grover Beach at 9: 04 p. m. on Saturday, September 7, 2002.
( 2) A 1997 Chevrolet Tahoe was traveling west on Grand Avenue at the same time.
( 3) The vehicle struck the pedestrians, causing serious injuries that resulted in the
subsequent death of one girl and minor injury to the other.
( 4) GBPD responded to the emergency call.
Findings:
( 1) The GB police officer on patrol at the time arrived within two minutes of the
accident.
( 2) The San Luis Obispo Ambulance Service was requested at 9: 06 p. m., arriving at
9: 10, to provide medical attention and to transport the seriously injured victim to
Arroyo Grande Hospital ( AGH). A second ambulance, summoned at 9: 12 p. m.,
arrived at 9: 17, took the other victim to AGH where she was treated and re-leased.
( 3) The GB responding officer interviewed and took statements from five witnesses
at the site of the accident.
( 4) The GB officer interviewed the driver and administered a preliminary alcohol
breath test, then released him.
( 5) When another GB police officer came on duty, that officer went to the driver’s
home, and at 10: 11 p. m., took him to AGH to obtain a blood sample.
( 6) Neither the first- responding GB police officer, nor his watch commander on duty
at the time of the accident, had the training required to issue a citation at the
scene of the accident unless he had witnessed the accident.
( 7) A Pismo Beach police officer with advanced traffic accident training arrived at
9: 57 p. m. and assisted with the investigation, as requested by GB police.
( 8) The GB police officer's report did not indicate any adverse weather or lighting
conditions as contributing causes of the accident.
( 9) The police report showed no tire skid marks on the pavement.
6
( 10) The GBPD impounded the vehicle and arranged for a full inspection.
( 11) The GB officer and a police volunteer took photos that night, and later, during the
accident reconstruction.
( 12) On September 10, 2002, the GBPD requested that California Highway Patrol
Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team ( MAIT) inspect the vehicle. MAIT
inspected the vehicle on September 12, 2002.
( 13) MAIT's vehicle inspection ruled out malfunction as a cause of the accident.
( 14) September 11, 2002, four days after the accident, the seriously injured victim
died from the injuries she had sustained.
( 15) On September 24, 2002, the GBPD submitted a complete report in triplicate -
including accident details, photos, medical reports, and witness statements - to
the SLO County DA Office.
( 16) The GB police accident report recommended that the DA review the report for
possible prosecution of the driver for violation of Penal Code Section 192( C), ve-hicular
manslaughter without gross negligence, and Vehicle Code Section
21950( a), pedestrian right of way at a crosswalk.
( 17) After submitting its report to the DA's Office, GBPD considered its task complete.
Per the department’s standard operating procedure, police personnel did not
make any further inquiries about the case or the possible prosecution of the
driver.
Conclusions:
( 1) The GBPD conducted a thorough investigation of the accident.
( 2) Accident reconstruction efforts followed guidelines detailed in the Collision
Investigation Manual.
( 3) Weather, lighting, and vehicular malfunction were ruled out as causative factors.
( 4) GBPD insured that the appropriate medical reports were included in the investi-gation
package before delivery to the DA.
( 5) The initial responding officers were unable to write a citation at the scene
because they lacked the requisite training.
( 6) GBPD processed the case efficiently and effectively.
( 7) GBPD's delivery of the complete report to the DA’s office was timely.
7
Recommendations:
( 1) The GBPD should make every reasonable effort to train additional field personnel
so that citations may be written at the scene, when appropriate.
( 2) In future cases involving death or serious injury, the GBPD should routinely
follow up and inquire of the DA as to the status of the case.
GBPD Response Requirement
Under Penal Code Section 933( c), the governing body of the GBPD shall comment to
the presiding judge on these findings and recommendations no later than 90 days from
this report's publication.
PART TWO
District Attorney's Office Processing
and Victim Witness Handling of the Case
A. What went on in the District Attorney's Office?
Facts:
( 1) The DA's receptionist received the file from the GBPD on September 24, 2002
and date- stamped it.
( 2) The Intake Secretary personally delivered the large file to the Deputy DA
responsible for misdemeanor filings after numbering and processing the file.
( 3) No system was in place at that time for tracking misdemeanor cases.
( 4) The file remained in the Filing Deputy's office from late September 2002 until
March 26, 2003.
( 5) The Filing Deputy did not contact GB or PB police officers about their accident
investigation, or call upon the DA investigators to conduct additional investiga-tion.
( 6) The Filing Deputy stated to the GJ that he did not discuss with his colleagues his
problem with filing.
( 7) The District Attorney received a letter from the victim's mother on March 18,
2003, questioning the delay in filing charges.
( 8) On March 26, 2003, the Chief Deputy DA told the filing deputy to file the case.
8
( 9) The Filing Deputy said he could not file the case because he could not find a
violation of the vehicle code.
( 10) This same Filing Deputy filed serious criminal charges against this same driver in
1999 which resulted in a conviction.
( 11) The Filing Deputy told the GJ that in reviewing the file in March 2003, he
discovered that the driver is the son of the County Tax Collector whom he knows.
The Filing Deputy serves with the County Tax Collector on the County Pension
Trust Fund board, which poses a possible appearance of conflict of interest.
( 12) Upon learning that the County Tax Collector is the driver's father, the Chief
Deputy took the file for transfer to the AG's Office on March 26, 2003 to avoid
any perception of conflict of interest.
Findings:
( 1) The Filing Deputy had opportunity to examine the file in late September 2002.
( 2) The file remained in the Filing Deputy's office for six months without the
knowledge of senior DA personnel due, in part, to the lack of a tracking system.
( 3) The Filing Deputy did not act on the case, to either file or decline to file, during
the six months the case remained on his desk.
( 4) He did not seek advice of the Chief Deputy DA or the DA after he read the file.
( 5) He did not discuss with other DAs, before March 26, 2003, any perceived
problem about filing.
( 6) Each time the victim's mother requested to speak to him he declined. He chose
to communicate through the victim's family’s attorney.
( 7) The Chief Deputy, on March 26, 2003, directed the Filing Deputy by saying, " You
need to file this case." It was then that the Filing Deputy said he first noticed a
document from the tax collector's office bearing the name of the driver's father.
( 8) The Chief Deputy, acting on this possible conflict, contacted the AG Office in Los
Angeles, asking that office to review the file.
( 9) The Senior Assistant AG stated that the case did not meet the usual parameters
of conflict, but would take it as a courtesy.
( 10) GJ investigation of Pension Trust Fund minutes of January 26, 1998 through July
28, 2003, travel vouchers, conference expenses, and Auditor/ Controller records
of the past five years did not expose any connections that suggested a conflict
9
between the Filing Deputy and the County Tax Collector, despite their serving on
that same committee.
Conclusions:
( 1) The Filing Deputy did not act to perform his duty to file or reject this case.
( 2) The Filing Deputy withdrew from any of the alternative actions available to him.
( 3) The Filing Deputy, when questioned by the Grand Jury, had no acceptable
explanation for his inaction.
( 4) The lack of a tracking system for misdemeanors allowed this case to go
unresolved and unnoticed for six months.
( 5) The Chief Deputy DA accepted the perception of a conflict of interest and
referred the case to the AG.
( 6) The District Attorney's Office did not file or reject the case in March 2003,
causing additional extended stress to the victim's family.
( 7) Because of this case, in April 2003, the Chief Deputy DA requested two new
systems of tracking. One was to track the more serious high misdemeanor ( red
dot) pending cases; the more recent one, for pending cases neither filed nor re-jected.
( 8) This case fueled the formulation of a new procedure ( still in draft in the DA's
Office) titled Filing Procedures for Vehicular Manslaughter Cases ( and Other
Cases Involving a Fatality).
( 9) The Grand Jury found nothing to indicate to us that a conflict of interest existed
with the DA handling the case, in the interviews we conducted or the records we
reviewed.
( 10) The Grand Jury’s initial observation was that the Filing Deputy’s performance in
the handling of this case should be sanctioned. However, a closer examination
revealed that management personnel either knew, or should have known, that a
review of this fatal accident was pending. News articles, for example, were
printed at the time of the accident in local newspapers in which the driver was
named. News articles in December 2002 identified the driver as the son of the
County Tax Collector.
Recommendations:
( 1) The DA’s Office should track all cases, starting from the time a file comes to the
office, rather than when the deputy files it. [ The new Pending Cases ( Neither
Filed or Rejected) does this tracking now.]
10
( 2) Encourage Deputy DAs to seek input of each other and of their superiors
regarding problematic and difficult cases.
( 3) The Grand Jury recognizes that this is a small county and therefore many people
in county government know each other. This makes it even more imperative that
the DA's Office identifies conflicts early on in their handling of criminal cases.
( 4) The DA’s Office should substantiate claims of conflict of interest more carefully
before referring cases elsewhere.
B. How could " shelving" of the file in the DA's Office go unnoticed for
six months?
Facts:
( 1) No computer program existed for tracking misdemeanors.
( 2) At that time, no system of " red flagging" existed for misdemeanors before filing a
case.
( 3) The Filing Deputy did not act or say anything to his colleagues about this case.
( 4) Management in the DA's office was not aware of the inaction.
Findings:
( 1) Only felony cases were trackable at the time.
( 2) Communication within the DA's Office regarding this file was insufficient.
Conclusions:
( 1) Tracking systems for misdemeanors could have prevented the lengthy " shelving"
of the file.
( 2) The Filing Deputy failed to make a timely decision to file or reject.
Recommendations:
( 1) The Chief Deputy should periodically evaluate the computer programs designed
and implemented for tracking high misdemeanor ( red dot) cases and the new
pending cases, now that such tracking is available.
11
( 2) The Chief Deputy DA should exercise closer control/ oversight of deputies'
caseloads to monitor status of cases.
( 3) Management should take a more assertive role in supervising employees of the
DA's Office and take corrective action when needed.
C. How could the Victim Witness Office better assist the family?
Facts:
( 1) The case was delivered to the DA's Victim Witness ( VW) Division Assistant
Director's desk, but no action was initiated because a filing had not occurred yet.
( 2) No procedure was in place to require a contact with victims' families until after a
filing occurred.
( 3) The victim's mother made the first contact with VW Assistant Director on
December 23, 2002, asking to see the Filing Deputy.
( 4) The victim's mother requested the help of VW on seven occasions. She had
questions about the lack of progress of the case.
( 5) Subsequent communication between the victim's mother was with another VW
advocate. The Assistant Director assigned this advocate to the case on February
6, 2003.
( 6) VW made no other attempts to satisfy the request of the victim's mother when the
filing deputy declined to talk with her.
( 7) The VW advocate and Assistant Director did not communicate with the Director
of the VW Office concerning victim's parents' inquiries.
( 8) The first contact initiated by VW to advocate on behalf of the victim's family was
on March 10, 2003. [ The accident was in September 2002.]
( 9) The Filing Deputy advised the VW advocate on March 10, 2003, that he was
inclined not to file the case.
( 10) The Director of VW stated that she did not know of the police report until March
31, 2003.
( 11) The Director of VW and Chief Deputy DA met with the victim's mother on April
10, 2003, to inform her that the DA had referred the case to the AG's Office.
( 12) The Director of VW spoke with the DA on July 24, 2003, after victim's mother
requested the DA re- review the case.
12
Findings:
( 1) At the time of the accident, Victim Witness lacked policy for discussing with
victims' family where death is involved. [ New policy addresses this.]
( 2) Communication within the VW Office was insufficient in this case.
( 3) The VW Assistant Director realized the father- son relationship of the County Tax
Collector and the driver upon his review of the file.
( 4) The victim's family did not receive support and VW advocacy until the case went
to the AG's Office.
Conclusions:
( 1) Lack of communication within the VW Division hindered effectiveness of service
to this victim's family.
( 2) VW did not reach out to the family until after filing of the case, almost seven
months later.
( 3) The VW advocate was not helpful in addressing this victim's parents' anxieties
when they repeatedly requested status reports.
( 4) Lack of initiative and responsiveness reflects negatively on staff and division.
( 5) Policy and procedures failed to address this case while the Filing Deputy
remained undecided.
( 6) The policy in existence at the time and the lack of a tracking system prevented
timely assistance to victim's family.
Recommendations:
( 1) The director should schedule regular VW Division meetings for discussion of
current cases among all advocates.
( 2) The division should develop guidelines to offer appropriate assistance to families
of victims while waiting for the DA's decision to file or reject. [ New procedure has
been drafted and instituted as of December 11, 2003 as a result of this case.]
( 3) Assistant directors should monitor DA intake data to assess need for VW
intervention. [ Also part of new procedure.]
( 4) VW advocates should promptly notify the Chief Deputy DA when filing deputies
are not responding in a timely manner to victim's requests.
13
DA and VW Response Requirement
Penal Code Section 933( c) mandates that the DA shall comment within 90 days to the
presiding judge on the findings and recommendations in this report directed to the DA
Office and the Victim Witness Division.
PART THREE
Transfer of the Case to the
California Attorney General ( AG) Office
The DA's office sent the case to the Los Angeles office of the California Attorney
General on March 26, 2003, with a letter advising that
1) "... a conflict of interest exists which would preclude the prosecution of
the above- entitled matter by our office," 2) the "… case does not fit the
strict traditional definition of a conflict of interest, but better judgment
would indicate that an impartial review and prosecution of the case would
be in the public interest due to the complex net of interactions that the fa-ther
of the defendant has with members of our office," and 3) " We would
appreciate it if your office would be kind enough to handle this matter to
avoid any appearance of impropriety in the handling of this case by our
office."
The DA ' s Office sent the file, containing only material related to this incident, to the AG
after the AG agreed to take the case. The AG’s staff conducted their investigation,
holding the case four months before determining that there were not sufficient grounds
to file charges against the driver. We have incorporated in this summary the AG
representatives' explanation to the GJ of some of their investigative process.
On July 21, 2003 the AG met with the victim's family in SLO to apprise them of their
decision to reject the case. Later that week the girl's mother called VW to request the
DA re- review the case. Meanwhile the AG sent a letter to inform the DA of the decision.
On August 19, 2003 the family and others came to meet with the DA and express their
anger and frustration at the long delay of the filing decision. They also communicated
their dissatisfaction with their lack of access to the Filing Deputy. The GJ received these
same complaints in August.
On September 3, 2003, two AG representatives came to the SLO County GJ Office.
They stated this was a highly unusual action. They explained their decision to us and
described what they did in reviewing the case. The AG does not consider the character,
behavior, or prior infractions of a suspect unless it is relevant, or proves some fact, or is
evidence that is usable to support a charge.
14
They stated that they had reviewed the case in light of practices typically applied to
cases reviewed in the Los Angeles urban area, where the number of such cases is
greater. They file only the most provable cases with aggravated circumstances. They
said that they did not consider the possibility of successful prosecution in a less
populous county, despite the fact that workload considerations vary greatly between the
two jurisdictions. On May 4, 2003 a Deputy AG personally visited the site of the incident
and interviewed the GB Police officer who responded to the 911 call.
The AG staff considered whether sufficient evidence existed for filing charges against
the driver. They cited these factors in making their decision:
1) the street lighting at the intersection
2) the dark clothing worn by the victims
3) conflicting evidence that both girls were within the crosswalk at the time the
vehicle struck the girls
4) that the driver’s speed was assumed to be within the posted speed limit, and
5) no evidence that the driver had consumed alcohol.
They examined the cell phone records of the driver for calls made on the evening of the
incident and determined that he was not talking on his cell phone at the time that his
vehicle struck the two girls. They believed that the two victims might have been outside
the crosswalk at the time the vehicle struck the girls.
Because of the focused involvement of the GJ, the AG investigator returned to SLO to
re- examine evidence during the week of August 25- 29. They nevertheless concluded
that, in their opinion, the driver could not have avoided striking the victims. Listening to
the AG's report, the GJ realized that the case file submitted to the AG by the DA's Office
did not include the long list of the driver's prior driving citations and prior road rage
convictions nor had they seen the accident photos.
At the conclusion of the AG's presentation, the GJ's position was that the AG’s Office
should reconsider its decision. The GJ asked the AG to review additional materials and
provided them with accident photos and documents. The jury had compiled this
supplemental information in its investigation of the matter. When the GJ apprised the AG
representatives of these prior convictions, the AG staff responded that they could not
use much of the driver’s prior traffic record because that information would not be
admissible as evidence. The AGs agreed to take the box of materials from the GJ back
to Los Angeles with them. The additional items, however, did not change the AG's
opinion, and they so informed the GJ the next day.
The AG notified the victim's mother again on September 4, 2003 that they were not
prosecuting the case, but that the DA had the option of reclaiming the case. The victim's
mother immediately called VW urging the DA to resume control and file charges against
the driver.
15
PART FOUR
The District Attorney Reclaims the Case
The Senior Assistant Attorney General informed the Chief Deputy DA in a letter dated
July 23, 2003 that the AG staff’s review of the case was completed and that the AG’s
Office decided not to file any criminal charges against the driver. The letter arrived to
the desk of the Chief Deputy DA while he was out of the office on leave. Apparently no
one was assigned to process his mail in his absence. He returned to work August 11
and immediately showed the letter to the DA. The Chief Deputy asked the AG to return
the case paperwork to the SLO DA's Office.
Meanwhile, after learning of the AG's original negative decision, the GJ wrote to the
AG’s Office on August 15, 2003, just after receiving the family's complaints. The GJ
wanted an explanation of the factors contributing to the AG's decision. The GJ advised
the AG of the extensive local news coverage generated by the case and the hundreds of
complaints the GJ had received. The AG decided to present an explanation to the GJ in
person, something rarely done by that office.
On September 3, 2003 two representatives of the Los Angeles division of the AG’s
Office met with the GJ at the GJ office in San Luis Obispo to explain their decision of
July 23. As explained in Part 3 of this report, the GJ disagreed with the AG Office’s
decision and provided the AG representatives with additional information the GJ had
compiled, including photos of the accident scene and information about prior offenses
and convictions of the driver. However, that additional information apparently did not
change the AG Office’s decision not to file charges. The day following that visit to the
SLO GJ, the AG indicated their opinion had not changed despite the input from the GJ.
On September 4, 2003 the attorney for the victim’s family sent a letter to the Chief
Deputy DA stating that “ It is our hope that… your office will now file the misdemeanor
complaint against … and pursue prosecution in this matter.”
On September 5, 2003 the Senior Assistant Attorney General sent a letter to the District
Attorney forwarding more than 300 pages of material, including “… material you have not
previously seen or requested.” She also referred information to the DA relating to a
Department of Motor Vehicles administrative hearing decision to return the driver’s
license and some information regarding the cell phone previously installed in the vehicle.
None of that information proved to be relevant to this investigation.
The AG indicated that the DA's Office was free to file if they chose to do so. That same
day, September 5, 2003, the DA assigned the case to another Filing Deputy with the
instruction to research and review the case and to recommend whether or not to file any
charges. ( Remember that on March 26 the Chief Deputy had instructed the filing deputy
to " file the case.") Later that same day the DA’s Office filed one count of misdemeanor
vehicular manslaughter against the driver.
16
Case Status:
The DA’s Office filed charges on September 5, 2003 in the San Luis Obispo County
Superior Court and counsel for defense immediately proceeded to file a series of
motions. In January 2004 a defense motion to recuse the DA’s Office from the case and
effectively end the prosecution failed in superior court. Defense counsel had requested
an April 2, 2004 hearing regarding his motion involving the prosecution’s failure to
preserve the victim’s blood sample. Arroyo Grande Hospital did not keep the victim's
blood drawn on the evening of the accident. The defense position is that the blood
sample is potentially significant in the case because a preliminary screening by hospital
staff had shown the presence of methamphetamine in the victim. The defense attorney,
however, had a conflict on April 2, and the motion was continued to April 16. A ruling on
all motions is necessary before the trial scheduling date of May 28. The SLO DA is
ready to proceed with the trial, which has been set for June 22.
17
ATASCADERO HIGH SCHOOL
MARCHING BAND PLAYS AT
POLITICAL CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN RALLY
On Sunday, September 28, 2003 the Atascadero High School Marching
Band played at a political rally for then candidate for governor, Arnold
Schwarzenegger. To some county residents, this appeared to be in viola-tion
of the California Education Code, which prohibits use of school
resources for political purposes. Reports of the story in local newspapers
included an opinion from the California Department of Education deputy
legal counsel indicating that, if asked, he would have advised against the
band playing. Within weeks of the event, the Grand Jury received two
complaints from citizens citing this and other news reports, and express-ing
concern that the Atascadero Unified School District had violated the
law in permitting the band to play at the rally.
Authority for the Inquiry
The authority for the Grand Jury to inquire into this matter is given in Section 933.5 of the
California Penal Code: “ The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records
of any special- purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county or
the local agency formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any other inves-tigatory
powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or
system of performing the duties of such district or commission.”
Overview
The Atascadero Unified School District ( AUSD) is responsible for the operation and su-pervision
of thirteen schools, including Atascadero High School. The schools are
located in the northern part of the county, serving the communities of Atascadero, Cres-ton
and Santa Margarita. The district is governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of
seven members who are publicly elected to four- year terms. The Board establishes the
policies that govern the operations of the schools in the district, and hires the District Su-perintendent,
who is responsible for policy implementation.
Many of the Board policies reference the California Education Code, which sets the legal
requirements for public schools in the state. The section of the code relevant to this in-quiry
is 7054( a), which states:
18
No school district or community college district funds, services,
supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the
support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but
not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of
the district.
The applicable AUSD policy mirrors and references this section, and reads:
No district funds, services, supplies or equipment shall be used to
urge the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, in-cluding
any candidate for election to the Board. ( Education Code
7054)
Section 7058 of the Education Code further clarifies 7054 as follows:
Nothing in this article shall prohibit the use of a forum under the
control of the governing board of a school district or community col-lege
district if the forum is made available to all sides on an
equitable basis.
Since the band performance in question occurred at a political rally for a gubernatorial
candidate, some residents questioned whether it violated the Education Code and AUSD
policies. The performance was requested by Assemblyman Abel Maldonado, and the
expenses for it were billed to his office. Nevertheless, some individuals question whether
this is adequate to counter the perception that AUSD resources were used to support a
political candidate.
Method
We obtained the information reported here through review of AUSD policies, correspon-dence
and an interview with the AUSD Superintendent, and an interpretation provided by
legal counsel for AUSD. The Grand Jury requested and received the applicable AUSD
policies and procedures related to the band playing at the rally, as well as information re-garding
the payment of the expenses incurred. Jurors interviewed the superintendent
and reviewed the related documents.
Description of Inquiry
In providing information on behalf of the district, the superintendent repeatedly empha-sized
that the band performance at the rally was never intended to show support for a
candidate, but was considered to be simply an opportunity for the band to perform. Given
the political nature of the rally, specific concerns included whether AUSD funds were
used, whether students were required to participate, and whether the decisions relative
to the band playing at the rally were made in accordance with district policies and public
considerations. Our findings are summarized below.
19
( 1) The AUSD Request for Transportation form details that there were two buses used
for seventy- five students and ten adults to attend the rally in Santa Maria on September
28, 2003. The charges for the two bus drivers, bus mileage, and meals are itemized in
accordance with the AUSD 2003/ 2004 Transportation Rates. The mileage rate includes
an allocation for vehicle maintenance and insurance. The listed expenses totaled
$ 718.85.
( 2) An invoice for $ 718.85 was sent to Assemblyman Maldonado at his office in San
Luis Obispo, and was paid by a check on an account of “ Californians for Schwarzeneg-ger”
dated November 18, 2003.
( 3) The band members were not required to participate. The band’s performance at the
rally was considered to be an extracurricular field trip, for which parental approval was
necessary. One family did not approve and the band member did not perform.
( 4) The decision to allow the band to perform at the rally was made by the principal of
Atascadero High School. This is the appropriate level for approval of field trips, accord-ing
to the district’s organizational delegation of authority. The principal sought additional
review because the performance had the potential for appearing to support a political
candidate. In the absence of the superintendent, the principal consulted with the Assis-tant
Superintendent of Educational Services, who concurred that the field trip was
appropriate.
( 5) The interpretation of the AUSD legal counsel, requested after the fact, supports the
decision to allow the band to perform. The legal opinion was provided in writing at the
request of the Grand Jury, and highlights the reimbursement for the AUSD expenses re-lating
to the performance. The legal counsel’s concluding remarks are as follows:
In this instance, where no District funds were expended, the activ-ity
was voluntary, it was not during school hours, and the intent of
the District administration was to provide students with an oppor-tunity
to perform publicly, there was no violation of Education
Code section 7054 ( a).
The District’s Board and administration has the discretion to de-termine
that there is an educational benefit to AUSDHS band
students performing publicly. Such a determination is appropriate
given that public performance is a natural part of learning to play a
musical instrument in any band. Had the students been provided
with the same opportunity to perform for other candidates, and the
students were able to perform, the intent and impartiality of the
District administration might be more easily understood. But the
lack of additional invitations and opportunity cannot convert the
proper intent of the administration to an improper intent.
20
While the District must avoid using District funds, services, sup-plies
and equipment for the purpose of supporting or opposing
particular candidates or issues, it is nevertheless our opinion that
the AUSDHS Band may voluntarily participate in a public perform-ance,
even at a political event, where no District funds are
expended, and the intent is not to support the candidate, but
rather to provide students with the opportunity to perform publicly.
Conclusion
The issues surrounding the band performance at the political rally appear to be a matter
of legal interpretation. A conclusive opinion would have to come through the courts or
further legislative action. The decision to allow the band to perform in this instance, how-ever,
was made within the spirit and intent of the law as interpreted by the AUSD legal
counsel and consistent with District policy. A new or changed policy that would direct a
different decision regarding marching band performances is a matter for the AUSD Board
of Trustees to consider.
Required Responses
This is an informational report. No formal response to this 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
21
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY
The California Men’s Colony ( CMC) is located on Highway 1 just north of
the San Luis Obispo city limits. It is a low and medium security prison
under the direction of the State of California Department of Corrections,
and includes two main facilities on 356 acres. The West facility houses
the lower security inmates in a barracks- type setting. The East facility,
with more traditional prison cells, primarily houses inmates with medium
security classifications. The total inmate population at CMC in March
2004 was 6,542.
The average CMC employment level is 1,673, of which 952 are custody
staff positions that include correctional officers, counselors, and medical
technical assistants. The local facility and operations are managed by a
warden who is appointed by the governor. Following the former warden’s
retirement, Assistant Warden Leslie Blanks served as acting warden for
almost two years. Current Warden John Marshall was appointed on Oc-tober
30, 2003.
Authority for the Inquiry
The California Penal Code § 919 ( b) establishes the authority for this inquiry as follows:
“ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons
within the county.”
Method
We obtained the information reported here through interviews, documents review, and
visits to the prison. Early in our term, Acting Warden Blanks presented an informational
overview to the full Grand Jury. Members of the jury toured CMC on September 30,
2003, visiting both the East and West facilities. Jurors returned on January 29, 2004, to
meet with the new warden, to visit a vocational class, and to follow up on questions
concerning the Inmate Trust Fund. We were encouraged to talk to inmates and
correctional officers during both visits.
Description and Observations
Our initial visit to the East facility included a tour of prisoner cells, the education facilities,
the operations of the Prison Industries Authority, and a “ typical” inmate lunch in an inmate
dining hall. We were driven in a CMC bus from the East to the West facility where we
observed the barracks, the recreational yards, and the Arts in Correction program.
22
Housing
Inmates are assigned to the East or West facility based on their security levels, which
consider many factors. The lower security inmates ( levels 1 and 2) housed at the West
facility typically have no history of prison disciplinary action, no prior escapes, and a
majority of their sentences served. Higher security levels 3 and 4 are assigned based on
the type of crime, post- conviction behavior, outstanding holds/ warrants, length of
commitment and balance of sentence. Inmates housed in the East facility have level 3,
or medium, security level designations. In addition to security assignments, each inmate
is given an activity assignment that typically requires him to participate in either an
education or an employment program.
Even from our brief tours, it was clear that the housing conditions at both facilities are
crowded. The inmate cells that we observed in the East facility were designed for single
occupancy, although there are currently two inmates living in each 5' X 8' cell. The
second added bunk is hinged on the wall and must be pulled up for the occupants to
move about the cell. The design capacity for the East facility is 2,425, although its
average daily inmate population in March 2004 was 3,689.
The West facility inmates are housed in military- style barracks, each holding approxi-mately
ninety bunks. We observed that there was little room to move around the barracks
even when most of the inmates were outside in the yard. The March 2004 inmate
population of 2,853 is almost double the West facility design capacity of 1,459.
Education
Educational activities primarily include adult basic and high school level academic
classes and vocational programs. Vocational courses include: machine shop, dry
cleaning, electronics, welding, auto shop, small engine/ motorcycle repair, landscaping,
and office services/ related technology. Both the academic and vocational programs are
located at the East facility.
On our second visit we observed the office services/ related technology class; both the
instructor and the curriculum were impressive. It is a self- paced program, with 30
students who use computers with standard business applications. The curriculum
progresses from basic typing and business math, through more advanced subjects such
as bookkeeping and business law. The final modules cover computer applications,
including databases, word processing, spreadsheets, and desktop publishing. It should
be noted that the instructor also includes life skills such as goal setting, self improvement
and presentation skills in the curriculum. We were encouraged to talk to the inmates in
the class and found them to be generally appreciative of the class and the instructor’s
efforts.
We also visited the Arts in Corrections program located at the West facility for lower
security inmates. Although not formally identified as an education program, activities for
inmates provide outlets for artistic expression in words, painting and music. Fifty- four
inmates attend a structured program there as their official assignment. An additional 90
23
inmates voluntarily participate in Arts and Corrections activities during their unassigned
time. We watched a video of an inmate- produced play, and listened to a live perform-ance
of a three person self- written and produced musical piece.
Employment
During our initial visit we met with the director of the CMC Prison Industry Authority ( PIA)
programs. The PIA provides jobs for inmates in the production of goods and services
used both inside and outside of the prison system. We toured the PIA shoe factory, the
T- shirt factory, and the print plant where state auto registration stickers and brochures are
produced. Other PIAs include a knitting mill, jacket factory, glove factory, laundry and
maintenance. In the generally repetitive and fairly low skilled PIA jobs, inmates earn from
$ 0.30 to $ 0.95 per hour. With the exception of those sentenced to life with no parole and
“ three- strikers,” inmates also earn one day off their sentence for each day of work.
We were interested in recidivism ( return rate) statistics for inmates who work and learn
employable skills in the PIA, as compared with those who were not involved in PIA during
their incarceration. Although the state does not currently provide statistics by facility, the
state- wide recidivism figures for the year 2000 provide insight into the influence of the PIA
program. For PIA inmates, the recidivism rates were 19 percent for the first, and 43
percent for the second year. The rate for inmates who had not held PIA jobs was more
than double in the first year ( 43 percent) and was 56 percent in the second year.
In addition to PIA, prisoners may be assigned to other work programs, such as in the
prison’s Food Services division. Other prisoners are assigned as Inmate Firefighters,
who can make from $ 32 to $ 52 per month, or to the Hazardous Materials Unit where
inmates receive $ 48 per month.
Inmate Trust Fund
We requested and received a detailed presentation on the Inmate Trust Fund during our
January visit. The Associate Warden for Business Services and the fund’s Business
Manager provided an overview of the fund’s management. Their philosophy reflects a
respect for the inmates’ right to understand and monitor their funds. The general
approach is that of a bank, and each inmate receives a monthly trust fund balance report.
Additional time is spent explaining these reports to inmates as needed. The fund is also
subject to regular state level audits, which have reported no problems in recent years.
Community Services
During calendar year 2003, CMC had 76,000 hours of inmate time, and 6,071 hours of
staff time involved in fire suppression and “ Fire Kitchen” operations. These figures include
inmates directly fighting fires as well as those involved in setting up and staffing the
kitchens that feed the firefighters. In addition, 4,000 correctional officer hours were spent
supervising these inmates. Inmates also set up a kitchen to serve all those assisting after
the December 22, 2003 San Simeon earthquake.
24
CMC provides inmate service crews to local communities to perform such services as
weed abatement, general clean- up, sandbagging, tree trimming, seaweed cleanup of
beaches, clearing culverts, trash pickup on highways, and fence repair. CMC has entered
into contracts to provide Community Service Crews to the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover
Beach, Morro Bay and Pismo Beach, to the County of San Luis Obispo General Services
and Roads Department, and to Port of San Luis. These crews have also been provided
at no charge to Cal- Trans and San Luis Obispo School District. CMC estimates that
communities saved $ 189,594 by using the CMC crews during the last year.
Inmate groups make cash donations to community groups. In 2003, the Leisure Time
Activity Groups ( Prisoners Against Child Abuse and CMC Literacy Council) distributed
$ 13,250 in cash donations, and an additional $ 4,000 for the annual Holiday Party for
Inmates’ Children. Some other recipients of donations include: Alpha Academy, SLO
Child Development Center, County Mental Health Youth Services, North County
Women’s Shelter, SLO Literacy Council, SLO Prado Day Center, and the Good Samari-tan
Shelter.
Required Responses
This is an informational report. No formal response to this 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
25
CALIFORNIA VALLEY
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Synopsis
The 2003/ 2004 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury received several
complaints from citizens of California Valley regarding the operations of
the California Valley Community Services District ( CVCSD) Board of Di-rectors.
The Grand Jury examined the complaints, interviewed several
witnesses and reviewed the history of other complaints that had been
previously submitted to prior grand juries. After careful consideration, the
Grand Jury determined that insufficient evidence existed for an investiga-tive
report, and instead chose to prepare an informational report to draw
attention to the grievances submitted by the complainants.
Origin of the Inquiry
The complaints submitted to the Grand Jury stated that the CVCSD Board of Directors
did not conform to Brown Act meeting notification requirements or follow appropriate
procedures in handling citizen complaints. In addition, the complainants submitted to the
Grand Jury a petition signed by 73 CVCSD residents requesting that we help them
obtain the following amenities:
1. A gas station,
2. A clinic with doctors once a week,
3. Transportation into town two or three times a week,
4. A mercantile or convenience store, and
5. A water purification system for the entire valley.
Other comments submitted by the residents included unpaved roads in the district area
and the lack of garbage collection.
Authority for the Inquiry
California Penal Code § 933.5 authorizes the Grand Jury to investigate operations of a
special legislative district such as the CVCSD.
Method
Six members of the Grand Jury traveled to California Valley on Monday, February 16,
2004 for an informal meeting with the original complainant and several other subsequent
26
complainants. In addition, the Grand Jury interviewed the County District Five Super-visor,
the County Health Director, the County Director of Public Works, and the County
Auditor/ Controller. Grand Jurors also reviewed reports from previous Grand Jury investi-gations
of the CVCSD.
Setting
The CVCSD is established as a community services district under the provisions of
section 61000 et seq. of the California Government Code. The district is governed by a
five- member board of directors elected at large to four- year overlapping terms. The
district has an annual operating budget of approximately $ 400,000 and is responsible for
provision of basic services, including refuse collection.
The district board hires a general manager to administer and oversee the efficient and
effective provision of these services. During the 2003- 2004 fiscal year a large amount of
the district’s general fund reserves was determined to be missing. After a brief investi-gation,
the County District Attorney’s Office filed charges of embezzlement against the
general manager, who pled guilty to the charges. Although the mystery of the missing
funds has been solved, the fact remains that the district’s general fund reserves have
been severely depleted, leaving the board with insufficient money to continue to provide
several services, including refuse collection, to its residents.
The County Health Director advised the Grand Jury that the CVCSD, per their charter,
has the responsibility for garbage collection in the district area. The County Public
Works Director advised the Grand Jury that the unpaved roads listed in the citizen
complaints are CVCSD roads and, therefore, cannot be paved or maintained by the
county. The County Fifth District Supervisor affirmed that the CVCSD is responsible for
basic service delivery to the area, and advised the Grand Jury that the county does not
have sufficient resources to provide the other services and amenities that California
Valley citizens expect.
The Grand Jury found that CVCSD residents have previously submitted complaints
about the CVCSD Board of Directors to past grand juries. For example, the 1999- 2000
Grand Jury found a history of inefficient and inappropriate operation of the district’s
organization and service delivery.
Conclusions
This Grand Jury attempted to assist the residents of the CVCSD in resolving their
complaints and requests. However, the Grand Jury did not find any evidence of specific
Brown Act violations by the CVCSD Board of Directors. Further, the services and needs
detailed by the residents were beyond the jurisdictional reach of the Grand Jury and the
county.
27
In their report, the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury stated that, “… the CVCSD has a history of
inefficient and inappropriate operation.” The report then emphasized that:
Ultimately, voter participation is the only effective oversight for the
CVCSD. The effectiveness and responsiveness of the board of Directors
are directly related to the attendance and awareness of the electorate.
The Grand Jury urges constituents of the District to keep this in mind and
to become aware of, and involved in, the activities of their District.
This Grand Jury concurs with those conclusions.
Many of the issues in California Valley must be solved by the residents and their Board
of Directors. These issues would be costly to address and may well be beyond the
ability of the board to implement. Prioritization is even more important due to the
district’s unfortunate financial situation. The district has the authority under the
California Government Code to levy the necessary tax assessments to fund the district’s
operations, and must take the responsibility to do so.
Suggested Actions
Under Penal Code § 933.05, the CVCSD was required to respond to the aforementioned
recommendations and findings of the 1999/ 2000 Grand Jury Final Report. This Grand
Jury did not find evidence that such response was ever completed and submitted.
Accordingly, this Grand Jury recommends that the County Counsel advise the CVCSD
Board of Directors that their response to the 1999/ 2000 Grand Jury Final Report must be
submitted to the Superior Court within 90 days of issuance of this report.
The problems that were brought to this Grand Jury must be solved by the CVCSD. The
Grand Jury recognizes the district’s financial condition and understands that the
resident’s complaints and demands cannot be addressed or implemented overnight.
The Grand Jury contends that the Board of Directors must make a concerted effort to
conscientiously address each of these matters in a timely manner. Accordingly, the
Grand Jury also recommends that the CVCSD immediately contact the California
Special Districts Association for any applicable assistance, training and technical support
to prepare and implement a long- term program to address the issues raised by the
residents.
If such a long- term program cannot be implemented successfully on a timely basis due
to financial, realistic or other considerations, the Grand Jury recommends that the
residents of the CVCSD service area seriously consider disbanding the district. Under
such a dissolution, service delivery responsibility would revert to the county, and the
District’s Board of Directors would be replaced by the County Board of Supervisors.
28
Required Response
This is an informational report. No formal response to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
29
EL PASO DE ROBLES
YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
The El Paso de Robles Youth Correctional Facility ( El Paso) is one of
eight institutions operated by the California Youth Authority ( CYA) for the
detention, training and education of youthful offenders. The CYA is a de-partment
of the California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. Recently,
the agency has been under the scrutiny of the Governor, the California
Attorney General, the Legislature, and the new Director of the Youth Au-thority.
As a result, there has been considerable press coverage of CYA
and its facilities during the first part of 2004.
The El Paso facility is located across from the Paso Robles Airport. It
houses male offenders, referred to as “ wards,” who have been committed
to CYA by the Superior or Juvenile Court for offenses that would have
been felonies if committed by adults. Under a special contract with the
Monterey County Juvenile Probations Department, some of their wards
were also located at the El Paso facility. The ward population at El Paso
has been declining in recent years, mainly due to legislative changes. In
April 2002 there were 644 CYA wards and 327 full time staff at El Paso.
The ward population and staff level in April 2004 was 300 CYA wards, 48
Monterey County juveniles, and 264 full time staff.
Authority for the Inquiry
The California Penal Code § 919 ( b) states, “ The grand jury shall inquire into the
condition and management of the public prisons within the county.”
Method
The superintendent and assistant superintendent met with the full Grand Jury in August
2003 to provide an overview of El Paso’s mission and operations. They emphasized
that the facility is open “ 24/ 7” and we were invited to visit at any time. Members of the
Grand Jury visited the El Paso facility on three occasions during subsequent months. In
addition to meetings and tours, the El Paso management and staff provided extensive
documentation about the facility and its programs.
Informational Description and Observations
Our initial visit to the El Paso facility in October 2003 included presentations by the
senior staff and department heads. They provided current program and performance
data related to their area of responsibility. The format allowed questions and interaction
30
with all attendees. We also reviewed with the staff previous Grand Jury findings,
recommendations, and CYA’s responses to them.
We then toured the ward housing units, referred to as “ cottages.” There were nine
active housing units at the time of our first visit, each named for communities in San Luis
Obispo county. The number of wards housed in each unit ranged from 13 to 75, varying
according to capacity and the program it houses. The Cambria cottage is the designated
maximum detention unit. The environment is one of discipline and close personal and
video scrutiny. We verified that there were no “ cages” utilized for restraint or punishment
of the type that had been reported in the press at some CYA facilities.
Wards are assigned to a cottage based on their program assignment, which includes
initial reception and evaluation, drug dependency, food service and firefighters ( fire-fighter
wards have since been integrated into other cottages as a result of budget cuts
detailed below). All wards assigned to a program and cottage wear colored T- shirts
specific to that unit. This allows the correctional officers to quickly identify the wards
when they are going from one area to another and to verify that they are in the proper
location.
An informative part of our tour was a demonstration by the ward firefighters. This unit,
comprised of the most trusted wards, provided significant county and state service. In
2003, the wards expended 111,772 man- hours in emergency fire fighting, controlled
burns, and brush clearance.
Other programs also allowed wards to provide community service. They contributed
over 1,000 man- hours for the December 2003 San Simeon earthquake emergency
response and clean up. An additional 30,000 man hours were dedicated to community
and state activities that included: park maintenance, road/ ground maintenance, flood
control, and general construction. A partial listing of other public service activities the
wards performed included: maintenance for Paso Robles City, Hearst Castle, Atasca-dero
City and Templeton Community Service District, Paso Robles spring clean up,
Camp Roberts weed abatement and wood cutting, and the Mid- State Fair Paso Robles
High School graduation set- up and teardown.
These disciplined service activities provided the wards with an opportunity to make
positive contributions and gave them an incentive to return to society with job- related
behaviors and skills. Nevertheless, as of the time of this report, the state budget cuts
had eliminated the firefighters and the other community service programs, effective
February 29, 2004. There are ongoing efforts to reinstate some of the programs.
Resource groups that continue to be available to wards include: victim’s awareness,
substance abuse counseling, parenting, gang awareness, anger management, and
employability skills.
Members of the Grand Jury attended a lunch meeting with the Citizens Advisory
Committee on March 1, 2004. The approximately twenty members of the Advisory
31
Council represent various volunteer and non- profit organizations that provide support
functions for the wards. The Paso Robles Police Chief is also an active member. The El
Paso senior staff members attend the monthly Council meetings and present updates in
their areas of management. In our one meeting observation, the Advisory Council
appears to function less as an advising body than as an interface between the CYA and
the local community.
At the March meeting, the assistant superintendent gave us copies of two reports
commissioned by the California Attorney General and the Youth Authority: The Review
of Health Care Services in the California Youth Authority released August 22, 2003, and
The General Corrections Review of the California Youth Authority released December
23, 2003. Both reports were the result of thorough investigations over an extended
review period, and both reports are highly critical of the central ( state) and local
management of all CYA institutions. The recommendations, if implemented, will result in
major changes to the CYA.
On March 9, 2004, members of the Grand Jury returned to the facility to observe high
school and general education classes. Our observations were that, although the
instructors were making an honest effort to provide a disciplined and educational
environment, many of the wards did not seem to be engaged in the classroom activities.
The CYA should address whether the instructional content or end results are meaningful
to the general ward population.
Investigation of Pharmacy Medications
In February 2004, The Tribune of San Luis Obispo reported that the state commission
report on health services had found that the El Paso de Robles pharmacy contained
expired medications. Based on that information, and without prior notice, we asked to
review the pharmacy during our March 1 visit. Our intent was to verify that appropriate
corrective action had been implemented. Contrary to the previously touted “ 24/ 7”
availability, the superintendent and assistant superintendent initially balked at our
request, citing various reasons that would prohibit our inspection of the pharmacy. At
our insistence they reluctantly agreed, and three jurors were escorted to the medical
building.
The pharmacy is a secured room within the clinic. We found boxes of expired medica-tions
on top of the counters and the floor covered with several boxes of new medications
that were not properly stored. Upon subsequent review we found that the August report
described a similar situation: “ the pharmacy contained boxes and bags of medications
stored on the floor. Many of the medications had expired, or were about to expire.”
( Review of Health Care Services in the California Youth Authority, p. 47)
The superintendent indicated to us that there was no effective means of disposal for
expired medication. However, jurors later performed an internet search and quickly
identified information regarding the availability of registered disposal companies, one of
which is based in California.
32
Findings
( 1) Expired medications are stored in the pharmacy.
( 2) Significant quantities of medications are not properly stored in the pharmacy.
Recommendations
( 1) The El Paso de Robles Youth Authority should take advantage of available
services to properly dispose of expired medications.
( 2) Pharmaceuticals should be ordered on an as- needed basis and should be
expeditiously inventoried and stored.
Conclusion
Although the management expressed an openness to Grand Jury inspection on a “ 24/ 7"
basis, a more closed, protective attitude surfaced when we asked for an unannounced
tour of the pharmacy. This response seems consistent with that mentioned in the
December General Corrections Review of the California Youth Authority report which
noted that middle management had referred to prior investigations at El Paso as “ the
witch hunt.” We would suggest that a less defensive posture toward authorized
inspections would better serve the institution.
Overall, El Paso de Robles Youth Authority provides a reasonably safe environment for
the wards, staff, and correctional officers under conditions that are frequently hostile and
dangerous. The effectiveness of local and state mandated policies and the state- wide
improvements that are needed are best addressed by the state CYA, the formal state
review panel, and ultimately the Legislature.
Required Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933 ( c), the following agencies are required to respond to the
findings and recommendations contained in this report: The El Paso de Robles Youth
Authority Youth Correctional and The California Youth Authority.
33
FLOOD CONTROL: CLOGGED BY BUREAUCRACY
AND ATTEMPTS TO TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY
Synopsis
In March of 2001, the Arroyo Grande Channel Levee section of the San
Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone
1/ 1a was breached following heavy rains. This resulted in the flooding of
several hundred acres of agricultural fields, businesses, residences and
mobile homes. These heavy damages led to claims against San Luis
Obispo County with costs totaling $ 1,289,000. The San Luis Obispo
County Board of Supervisors responded by reinstating a citizen advisory
committee to specifically oversee the Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control
District. This was the first time any citizen oversight group had met in over
20 years for that purpose.
That committee was comprised of concerned residents of the county,
many of whom were directly affected by the flood breach. The committee
found the zone did not have enough funds to meet the current
maintenance requirements. The committee also recommended a study to
identify alternative means for clearing the creek and to guard against
future flooding. To this end, the Board of Supervisors appropriated
$ 150,000 for an Alternative Analysis Study to be included in the County
Public Works budget of 2002- 2003, only to later withdraw that funding.
Origin of the Inquiry
The Grand Jury received a complaint from a county resident whose property was
damaged from flooding stemming from the way in which the creek has been maintained.
Authority of the Inquiry
According to the California Penal Code § 925: " The grand jury shall investigate and
report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions
of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative
district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law."
Method
During the course of the investigation the Grand Jury obtained its information from
several sources. The information in this report is a compilation of information received
from attending watershed forums, interviewing many county officials, both
34
elected and appointed, as well as visiting the site. Through the course of the
investigation we met with, and interviewed, the Project Manager of the Arroyo Grande
Watershed Forum, San Luis Obispo Assistant County Counsel, Executive Director of
Environment in the Public Interest, County Public Works Director, County Deputy
Director of Public Works for Engineering Services, Coastal San Luis Resource
Conservation District Board President, State Division of Flood Management Chief, and a
representative from the Environmental Defense Center. We also interviewed the
complainant on multiple occasions.
Setting
The Arroyo Grande and Los Berros Creeks, located in the South County area of Arroyo
Grande and Oceano, flow into the adjacent lowlands, much of which is, and has been,
farmland for generations. A Public Works Department map of the area is included as an
Appendix to this report. Serious floods occurred in 1969, 1983, and 1995.
For visitors, and even long time residents, the Arroyo Grande Creek is part of the charm
of the Village historical area of Arroyo Grande, but most people know very little about the
creek that flows beneath the swinging bridge on its way to the sea. The creek is one of
several that flow from higher elevations east of Arroyo Grande, in this case from Lopez
Lake. It winds naturally toward the Village with a downhill flow and levels out as it
reaches farmland in the area west of Highway 101. This relatively flat area slows the
flow of the creek. The levee, built in the 1950' s, starts in the farmland near Halcyon and
extends three miles, including lower portions of Los Berros Creek.
Early ranchers and farmers used the creek for their crops and animals, but there was
often a price to pay when flooding occurred. Documented floods go back to the year
1862 and occurred with regularity from the early 1900' s through the 1940' s. A huge crop
loss in 1952 made it apparent that a project was necessary to improve the creek's ability
to move water. In 1957, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) coordinated
construction of the Arroyo Grande Channel Improvement Project.
The high probability of future flooding exists because over the years sedimentation and
riparian growth within the creek have restricted the capacity of the stream flow. To
monitor and protect the surrounding area, the County Board of Supervisors approved
creation of flood control districts 1 and 1/ A in the late 1950s. The county attempted to
clear the waterway from time to time as the creek channel filled with soil moved from
upstream.
Over the years the process for repairing the channel was made more difficult with the
increasing number of permits needed before work could begin, the extent of work
permitted, and the time limitations for such work. Budgetary constraints further
complicate any repair project. Permits are now required from the California Coastal
Commission, the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers, the USDA, and other agencies.
Because of the complex situation, county engineers have recently coordinated permit
applications for maintaining the channel.
35
Findings
( 1) On March 27, 2003 the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors sent a
letter to the California Department of Water Resources ( DWR) advising that SLO
County was considering relinquishing responsibility for the Arroyo Grande Creek
Flood Control Channel to the state.
( 2) On March 28, 2003, a letter from Chief of the DWR Division of Flood Control
Management stated that relinquishment by San Luis Obispo County would not
resolve the issue. The letter advised that the decision on how to best proceed
should be done carefully with public dialogue.
( 3) On April 1, 2003, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors adopted
Resolution No. 2003- 105 seeking to transfer responsibility for the Arroyo Grande
Channel to the State. That item was not listed on the agenda posted at the SLO
County Board of Supervisors' website, and the item was passed as a consent
agenda item without any public input.
( 4) One week later on April 8, 2003, the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District ( RCD) Board President and staff met with SLO County Public Works
representatives. A Public Works representative informed the RCD Board
President that the $ 150,000 Alternative Analysis Study was " off the table" for the
fiscal year 2002- 2003. The county, believing that it was no longer responsible
for any damage that may occur in the coming, or following rainy seasons, then
opted not to reallocate funding for the study in the next fiscal year budget,
beginning July 1, 2003.
( 5) On June 13 the DWR Chief of Flood Control Management sent a letter to the
SLO County Department of Public Works acknowledging the receipt of SLO
County Resolution No. 2003- 105. The state then told the county that such
jurisdictional transfer couldn't even be considered before July 2004, and possibly
not until 2005 due to limited resources.
( 6) Each agency says the other has the responsibility; neither is willing to do
anything now. In the meantime, probability of floods causing serious damage to
the property owners, the public, and farmers increases significantly. Future
lawsuits and any insurance claims against the county paid out will ultimately
affect the county taxpayer.
( 7) Despite the position of the county on jurisdictional transfer, they were quick to
respond after the earthquake of December 22, 2003. The following day the
County Public Works Department contracted for repair of four earthquake-damaged
locations on the Arroyo Grande channel levee. The county still
maintains that it has turned over responsibility for maintenance and repair to the
state.
36
Conclusions
Today the creek is clogged and flows slowly between the levees through the Oceano
area, emptying into the ocean south of the vehicle entrance to the beach. Anyone
wishing to see first hand the condition of the creek can do so by visiting the 22nd Street
Bridge in Oceano. From this vantage point it is possible to look toward the mesa and
see that at one time the entire area was a wetland. Nature's power is evident, both in
what was once here, and in what is occurring today.
The Grand Jury found that the problem in addressing a waterway with protected wildlife
is compounded by the numerous permit requirements found at the state level, and those
that are even more restrictive at the federal level. Even within the same agency,
whether state or federal, there often are overlapping divisions with differing processes,
programs, and priorities.
The Grand Jury determined that the number and nature of the permits required for such
a project is dependent upon the nature of the work to be done, which, in turn, is
dependent upon the results of required scientific studies. The studies themselves are
often very costly and time- consuming. A vast and complex array of mandated public
hearings and response must be completed prior to issuance of the permits necessary for
a project to address flooding in a creek channel such as Arroyo Grande Creek.
Assuming an acceptable alternative solution is identified as a result of any required
studies, the proposed project is then dependent upon the time duration of the various
permits, the cost of the project, the availability of funding, and seasonal construction
restrictions.
In short, the permit process is so difficult, complex, costly and confusing that even the
most knowledgeable government official finds it almost impossible to decipher and
implement. Even if the agency responsible for a drainage waterway is able to identify
and undertake the necessary steps, the cost of such projects must compete with many
other capital improvement projects for that government's limited budget funds, an
important consideration in the present fiscal climate.
In the opinion of the Grand Jury, by adopting Resolution No. 2003- 105, the Board of
Supervisors attempted to absolve itself of the long term expense and aggravation of the
permit process. Following this action, the Board of Supervisors removed the $ 150,000
which had been initially budgeted for the " Alternative Analysis" study. In the opinion of
the Board of Supervisors they were no longer responsible for the creek, and so there
was no need to perform that study. This action is especially disconcerting because the
Grand Jury has been told that the county actually holds an existing permit for some work
that could be done on the Arroyo Grande Creek channel. However, the county will not
proceed with the work allowed by that permit process because, in the estimation of
County Counsel, jurisdiction of the creek maintenance was immediately transferred to
the state upon adoption of Resolution No. 2003- 105, and county action on that permit
would mitigate against the county's position that the state now has responsibility for
maintenance of the Creek.
37
In the meantime, the property owners affected by creek flooding, including the original
complainant, are left waiting and wondering if anyone will help them avoid further
damage and expense. While the state disagrees that the county transferred jurisdiction
by adoption of Resolution No. 2003- 105, the one thing both entities agree on is that an
appropriate court of authority as a result of litigation could determine maintenance
responsibility. That, however, is very small consolation to the threatened property
owners.
Many federal, state, county, Coastal Commission and related environmental permits are
required for such drainage control work. Further, the cost of any logical solution to repair
or maintain the creek channel would be better borne by an agency with sufficient
authority and resources.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers historically has had responsibility for flood control
management in the continental United States. In 1999 the Corps of Engineers performed
a preliminary evaluation for potential solutions to the Arroyo Grande flood control
problem. Therefore, the Corps may be the appropriate agency to acquire the necessary
permits and complete the necessary work to protect the property and residents in this
area.
Recommendation
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a citizens’
committee to meet with the appropriate congressional representatives to obtain their
assistance in directing the Corps of Engineers to immediately undertake a flood control
remediation project to resolve the Arroyo Grande Creek channel flooding problems.
Required Response
As required by California Penal Code Section 933 ( c), within 90 days the County Board
of Supervisors shall comment to the presiding judge on the findings and recommend-ations
in this report.
38
Appendix
39
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL
The county jail, located on Highway 1 between the cities of San Luis
Obispo and Morro Bay, is operated by the San Luis Obispo County Sher-iff’s
Department. The facility houses inmates who have been convicted
of misdemeanors or felonies, inmates who have not been sentenced, and
some who are awaiting transport to a state prison.
Authority for the Inquiry
Penal Code § 925 states, “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations,
accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county.”
Method of Inquiry
The bases for this report include a grand jury tour of the jail and a meeting and follow- up
discussions with the sheriff. Additional information reviewed for this report include
statistical data provided by members of the Sheriff’s Department, and a summary of the
Board of Corrections Biennial Inspection Report dated February 26, 2004.
Description of the Inquiry
Grand Jurors toured the county jail on October 27, 2003, accompanied by the sheriff and
a correctional lieutenant. Issues of concern include overcrowding in the women’s
section of the jail, the prevalence of inmates requiring mental health services, and
inmate safety cells.
Jail - Women’s section
The California Board of Corrections ( BOC) conducts biennial inspections of the jail, in
accordance with Penal Code § 6031. The approved board rated capacity of the jail is for
412 male and 41 female inmates. However, there are currently 75 beds in the women’s
areas. The cells and dormitory units we observed were not only crowded, but the single
cells contained two beds and some prisoners were required to sleep on mattresses on
the floor. The average daily population of female prisoners in 2003 was 62. During the
months of October and November 2003, there were nine days when the female
population was over 80, peaking at 89 on October 23.
The February, 2004 BOC inspection of the jail found the women’s jail facilities, including
the female single cells, dorm and honor farm “... continue to remain out of compliance
with Title 24 regulations due to the beds placed in these areas” ( 2/ 26/ 04 BOC letter to
40
Sheriff Hedges). This finding was also reported in the 2001 BOC inspection. Previous
Grand Jury reports have recommended that this problem be addressed.
According to the Sheriff’s Department, funds for expansion of the women’s facilities have
been requested through the County’s Capital Improvement Project process each year
since fiscal year 1990- 91. The county budget office confirmed that expansion of the
women’s jail is included in a master plan for development of the jail site, and that
$ 694,000 was included in the 1999- 2000 budget for design work on the project. At the
start of the 2003- 2004 fiscal year, there was $ 562,000 remaining of this approved
amount.
Mental health
An increasing percentage of the jail inmate population is in need of mental health
services. The Sheriff’s Department cites the County Mental Health staff estimates that
30 percent of the inmates are receiving medication or counseling for mental health
issues. To address these issues, the Sheriff’s Department is partially funding a mental
heath therapist located at the jail. The department also reports that, in conjunction with
the Mental Health Department, it has initiated a program that provides inmates with a ten
day supply of medication upon their release from the jail. In addition, the Sheriff’s
Department is active in the county’s Homeless Task Force which is seeking to address
the problem within current systems, rather than create additional organizational
overhead and expense.
Cameras in safety cells
Previous Grand Juries have recommended that cameras be placed in the jail cells where
suicide- prone inmates are housed. The Sheriff’s Department August 2000 response to
this recommendation stated that this was not necessary since they had been successful
with their existing program for monitoring suicide- prone inmates. The department later
explained that an exposed video camera in the cell could become a suicide risk factor.
We inspected these cells during our tour of the jail and expressed concern that a small
window in the door was the only means of visually monitoring the inmate. In subsequent
discussions with the Grand Jury, the sheriff confirmed that current technology would
allow enclosed cameras to be installed in the cells, and that he is exploring funding to
acquire them.
Conclusion
The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury reported on the overcrowding in the women’s jail and
recommended that the sheriff act to correct the situation. We join them in highlighting
this unacceptable situation. Without funding and county action, however, the Sheriff’s
Department cannot expand the facility. It is the responsibility of the Board of Supervi-sors
and the county to move quickly beyond the design stage to implement a solution to
this ongoing problem.
41
The Sheriff’s Department appears to effectively operate and maintain a secure facility
with limited resources. They are to be commended for their efforts in coordinating with
the Mental Health Department to provide services to the increasing number of inmates
who require counseling and/ or medication. We also commend the sheriff for working
toward adding enclosed cameras in the safety cells. Given the increased inmate
population with mental health issues, it would be reasonable to expect that the number
of inmates with suicidal tendencies would also increase.
The jail staff, who are not trained mental health professionals, are likely to feel additional
stress in working with the mentally ill population in the jail. We encourage the depart-ment
to work with the Mental Health Department and to identify other resources in order
to provide the jail staff with appropriate training in working with mentally ill inmates.
Required Response
This is an informational report. No formal response to this 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report
is required from any agency.
43
THE SAFETY AND BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN?
AN INQUIRY INTO CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
Synopsis
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury received multiple complaints against the San
Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services ( DSS). These complaints
accused the Child Welfare Services ( CWS) division of failing to provide for
the safety and stability of children who are at risk of abuse and/ or neglect.
Investigation of the complaints led us to examine several CWS systems.
Our investigation focused on two areas where CWS has important responsi-bilities:
the county system for reporting and investigating suspected child
abuse, and the processes involved in the placement of children who have
been removed from their homes. We found problems in both systems that
involve lack of communication and coordination with related agencies. In re-porting
child abuse, CWS fails to provide law enforcement and the district at-torney
with required, timely information. In Juvenile Court cases concerning
the placement of children, CWS acts to keep information and other profes-sionals
who work with the children outside of the process.
While confidentiality is of the utmost importance in child welfare and court
cases, the same confidentiality that is supposed to protect these children is
used to prevent related agencies from communicating with CWS and the
court. There appears to be little or no accountability as to how CWS arrives
at many important decisions. Grand Jury members received specialized
training and were allowed access to confidential CWS case information. We
question whether the court is receiving all of the relevant information, or even
the correct information.
We also reviewed the CWS organization in our effort to understand its situa-tion.
We found an organization that is faced with enormous challenges,
many of which are inherent in the work it performs. There are currently
added pressures from California mandated changes and budgetary con-cerns.
The most difficult obstacle to overcome, however, may be the distrust
between social workers and upper management at CWS. Unless this prob-lem
is addressed, it is questionable whether CWS can effectively meet its
other challenges.
44
Origin of the Investigation
This investigation began as a result of a complaint that was accepted by the 2002- 2003
Grand Jury. The complaint alleged that the Department of Social Services, Child Welfare
Services division, failed to protect and to act in the best interest of two children. After initial
review late in its term, the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury assessed that the complaint may under-score
more serious problems within the department. Because of the time constraints, that
Grand Jury forwarded the complaint to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury for our consideration.
Upon review of the forwarded complaint, we accepted it as the first case of the 2003- 2004
Grand Jury.
By March 2004 we had received similar complaints and allegations involving 17 CWS cases,
16 families and 38 children. The allegations against CWS cover a range of issues, including
failure to respond to reports of child abuse and neglect, and inappropriate actions in foster
care and adoption cases. As we investigated each case, several themes emerged that
shaped our investigation and this report. The central question that we address in this report
is, does CWS effectively implement systems that protect the safety and best interest of chil-dren?
Authority for the Investigation
Our authority to pursue the investigation is pursuant to Section 925 of the California Penal
Code that states, “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts,
and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county.@ The Department of So-cial
Services is a county agency under the purview of the Board of Supervisors, and Child
Welfare Services is a division within that agency.
Overview: Child Welfare Services
This investigation focuses on the Child Welfare Services ( CWS) division of the San Luis
Obispo County Department of Social Services ( DSS). Within the county structure, the Board
of Supervisors appoints the DSS Director. Leland Collins has held this position since August
of 2000. DSS provides services under three main categories: Aid Programs, Adult Protec-tive
Services, and Child Welfare Services. Since the time of Mr. Collins= appointment as
DSS Director, the CWS division has been under the direction of Deputy Director Debby
Jeter.
The DSS budget derives its revenues from allocations of state and federal funds, special
grants, and county funds. The approved 2003- 2004 DSS budget includes expenditures of
$ 74.26 million, of which about 65 percent is for DSS administration and 35 percent is for di-rect
benefit payments. The county General Fund Support for the DSS 2003- 2004 budget
was originally approved at $ 3.53 million, although in January, 2004 this amount was in-creased
by nearly $ 2 million. The increases were attributed to the complex funding and state
reimbursement for CWS services. With the budget adjustments that were approved in May,
the total General Fund Support for the 2003- 2004 DSS budget was $ 6.97 million.
45
The major programs implemented through CWS are under the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Social Services and are regulated by California= s Penal Code ( PC), Welfare
and Institutions Code, and Health and Safety Code. The county receives federal funds for
CWS programs, along with the federal regulatory requirements, from the state DSS. The
California DSS Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 31 Child Welfare Services Pro-gram,
is the primary operating manual governing CWS programs. Local CWS policies and
procedures define specific implementation and practices in San Luis Obispo County. During
the last year, CWS has been compiling local procedures as ADesk Guides@ for workers to
access via the departmental intranet.
The county= s 2003 DSS Public Information Report states, AThe goal of Child Welfare Ser-vices
is to provide for the safety and stability of children who are at risk of abuse or neglect@
( March, 2004 p. 16). CWS services are listed in the following categories: Early Intervention/
Emergency Response, Family Maintenance Voluntary/ Family Preservation, Family Mainte-nance
Court Ordered, Family Reunification, and Permanency Planning. The work of CWS
involves receiving and responding to reports of child abuse or neglect, working with families
to facilitate effective parenting and safe environments for children, and, when necessary,
removing children from their homes and finding alternative placements for them.
The Juvenile Court, a division of the California Superior Court, has jurisdiction when CWS
takes a child from parents or legal guardians. CWS must petition the court to detain, take
custody, and/ or place children in foster care or other placements. Recommendations and
placement plans are developed by CWS and submitted for court review and approval. In
this capacity, CWS plays an important role in providing the critical information on which the
court bases its decisions.
The DSS Public Information Report also describes 15 Ainnovative practices and initiatives@
that CWS has implemented in its efforts to keep children safe. Many of these initiatives
have been in response to, or in anticipation of, social work benchmarks and state priorities.
Since 1998, standards of excellence in social services have been referred to as Best Prac-tices
and CWS has sought special funding in support of local implementation. Recently,
many such standards have been incorporated as state mandates and performance goals in
the California Child Welfare Services Redesign ( generally referred to as ARedesign@). 1
This statewide Redesign, which is being implemented from 2004 through 2007, also re-quires
major systems changes in local CWS operations. The state has selected San Luis
Obispo as one of the counties that will receive special funding as Aearly implementers@ of
the Redesign. CWS will receive a total of $ 2.85 million beyond its normal allocated state
funding over the next four years. The first $ 300,000 was accepted in January 2004, and the
remaining payments are to be distributed annually through fiscal year 2007- 2008.
A central component of the Redesign is the legislatively mandated statewide accountability
and monitoring system ( Assembly Bill 636), which involves tracking performance measures.
The online California CWS Case Management System ( CWS/ CMS), which the county CWS
has been phasing in over the past five years, enables the state to track county performance.
The system can also be used to track individual social worker performance.
46
State mandates and local initiatives in recent years have required county CWS employees to
learn, implement, and adapt to a myriad of changes. They also must provide vital services
with fewer staff. DSS has had a hiring freeze in place since May 2002, resulting in more
than 70 unfilled positions in 2004. In addition, in January 2004, the Board of Supervisors
approved the elimination of temporary CWS employees and of 18.5 permanent positions,
including two of the five senior management jobs.
Methods of Investigation
Our efforts to identify actions and behaviors that led to the complaints against CWS involved
conducting interviews, reviewing CWS case files, and examining various documents. We
conducted 37 individual interviews at the Grand Jury office, each lasting from one to three
hours. Interviewees included complainants, social service professionals, mandated report-ers,
lawyers, court commissioners, and current and former CWS managers, supervisors,
and social workers. A minimum of five Grand Jury members participated in each interview,
although there were typically eight to ten jurors present. The majority of the interviews were
tape recorded for the review of other jurors and for later reference. In addition to these
Grand Jury office interviews, we visited several law enforcement agencies to talk with offi-cers
over the course of our investigation. At least two jurors participated in each of these
visits.
Because of the sensitive nature of CWS cases, confidentiality, by law, is at a high level. All
jurors received special training in confidentiality from Office of County Counsel attorneys
prior to having access to confidential information or to CWS files. Discussions of cases and
our review of CWS files was completed in accordance with a Standing Order of the Superior
Court, as revised during the period of our investigation. At least two jurors reviewed each
file. Other documents reviewed for this investigation included the California Penal Code and
Welfare and Institutions Code, state and local agency publications, presentation handouts
and budget summaries, and correspondence and documentation provided by complainants
and related parties. When information in this report is derived from public information, the
source is indicated.
The range of issues that surfaced in the course of this investigation resulted in three areas
of focus that are developed in the remainder of this report. We have identified findings and
recommendations under each section, and include our concluding remarks at the end of the
report. This report includes the following sections:
I. Suspected Child Abuse Reports
II. CWS Placement Cases and Issues
III. Organizational Issues
IV. Concluding Remarks and Response Requirements
47
l. Suspected Child Abuse Reports
The focus of this section is the system used for reporting child abuse in California and its
implementation in San Luis Obispo County. We first review the legal requirements and then
discuss local processes.
The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, California Penal Code ' 11164 et. seq., is in-tended
to protect children from abuse. Many sections of the Penal Code and the Welfare
and Institution Code support this act and in many instances the section numbers of the two
codes are the same. Both law enforcement and Child Welfare Services ( CWS) play impor-tant
roles in ensuring compliance with the law.
SCAR is the acronym for Suspected Child Abuse Report, a Department of Justice form that
is used to report suspected physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse, and severe or gen-eral
neglect. Any person can make a report, but mandated reporters are required by law to
complete a SCAR form. Mandated reporters generally include any person who has direct or
indirect contact with children. Penal Code ' 11165.7, included here as Appendix A, identi-fies
legally designated mandated reporters, and a copy of the SCAR form is provided in Ap-pendix
B. All employers of mandated reporters are required by law to inform their employ-ees
about the requirements for reporting child abuse.
Mandated reporters are required to submit a SCAR whenever the reporters, in their profes-sional
capacity or within the scope of employment, have knowledge of, observe, or reasona-bly
suspect a child has been the victim of abuse or neglect. These suspicions are to be re-ported
immediately or as soon as possible by telephone to any police or sheriff's department
or to the county child welfare services. The SCAR form containing information concerning
the incident must be sent to the agency that was telephoned within 36 hours. As specified in
the instructions printed on the reverse side of the form, color specific copies are to be dis-tributed
to child welfare services, the local law enforcement agency, and the district attor-ney=
s office. The fourth copy is for reporting parties to keep for their record.
The report flow shown in Figure 1 is designed to ensure that all interested agencies are noti-fied
in order to initiate their investigations. The Penal Code specifies penalties for failure to
follow the designated procedures. A mandated reporter who fails to report any suspected
child abuse or neglect A... is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in a
county jail or by a fine of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) or by both fine and punishment@ ( PC
' 11166). The section further states A... any supervisor or administrator who violates or hin-ders
the distribution of the SCAR is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed
five thousand dollars ($ 5,000)@ ( PC ' 11166.01).
The purpose of requiring the distribution of the four part handwritten form is to ensure that all
appropriate investigative agencies are provided with original information. Any agency receiv-ing
a SCAR must accept it. When an agency receives a report for which it lacks jurisdiction,
the agency must immediately evaluate it and refer the applicable cases by telephone, fax, or
electronic transmission to the agency with proper jurisdiction.
48
Initiates
SCAR
Mandated
Reporter
CWS
Law enforcement District Attorney
Department of
Justice
Investigation
CWS/ CMS
Founded?
Yes Yes
Juvenile Court
Investigation Investigation
Suspected Child Abuse
Report ( SCAR)
Investigation
Yes
Delete
No
End
Abuse? Abuse?
No
Process flow in accordance with
Penal Code and Welfare and
Institution Codes
Law enforcement
as a Mandated
Reporter
District Attorney
as a Mandated
Reporter
CWS as a
Mandated
Reporter
Figure 1
49
The intent of the law is to ensure a multi- agency involvement process. The goal is for all in-formation
to be cross checked so that no child falls through the cracks of the process, and
that independent investigative reports are available to the courts.
SCARs in San Luis Obispo County
The issue of SCARs was brought to the Grand Jury= s attention when two mandated report-ers
filed a complaint asking us to follow up on why investigations were not initiated after they
had properly filled out and sent a SCAR to the county Child Welfare Services. This
prompted the part of this investigation that involved reviewing the distribution of SCAR forms
in our county.
In following up on the initial and subsequent complaints, we reviewed 17 CWS files involving
38 children. We found 44 SCAR forms that had been completed in the last three years,
mostly by mandated reporters. Thirty- five of the forms still included the copies intended for
distribution to law enforcement and the district attorney. In only one of the files was there
indication that the mandated reporter was sent an acknowledgment as required by the proc-ess.
Upon investigation, we learned that since August 2000, CWS has been initiating a comput-erized
CWS/ CMS version of the SCAR when they receive a report of suspected child abuse
that meets their criteria for action. Copies of that version of the SCAR are distributed to law
enforcement and the district attorney when required. A result of this practice is that in most
cases, the other agencies do not see the originally submitted SCAR that may contain infor-mation
that is not included on the CWS form. In instances when the original form is also
submitted, either by a mandated reporter or CWS, the result is that other agencies are re-ceiving
duplicate reports. An effective approach, which we found used in a few instances,
was CWS attaching the agency copy of the original SCAR to the CWS form they distribute.
Local CWS procedures are currently being developed as ADesk Guides@ for electronic distri-bution
to employees through the county DSS internal network. The working ADraft CWS
Desk Guide Subject: Intake Referral@ ( Draft Revised 7/ 17/ 03) calls for systematic distribution
of the reports as depicted in Figure 2.
We noted that the Desk Guide does not specify that a copy of the SCAR must be distributed
to the district attorney when it alleges physical or sexual abuse or severe neglect. While we
confirmed that the district attorney= s office does receive some copies of CWS generated
SCARs, it is difficult to know whether they are consistently distributed as required by law.
There is also a delay in receiving the reports from CWS. Even with the Desk Guide in place,
we identified additional areas of concern related to CWS communication with mandated re-porters
and the coordination with law enforcement.
Mandated Reporters
Many of the SCARs that we reviewed had been determined to be unsubstantiated or un-founded
by CWS. An unsubstantiated designation means that not enough evidence was
50
Initiates
SCAR
Mandated
Reporter
CWS
Investigation
CWS/ CMS
Juvenile Court
Suspected Child Abuse
Report ( SCAR)
Figure 2
Case carrying SW
SW’s Supervisor Licensing/ Approval supervisor
Placement supervisor
All CWS Division Managers
DSS SCAR
form
Case carrying SW
SW’s Supervisor Licensing/ Approval supervisor
Placement supervisor
All CWS Division Managers
Law Enforcement
Case carrying Social Worker’s ( SW) Supervisor
Licensing/ Approval supervisor
Placement supervisor
All CWS Division Managers
Law Enforcement
District Attorney
Distribution in accordance
with Desk Guide
Typical distribution
Internal distribution only
Process flow in accordance with the
San Luis Obispo CWS Desk Guide
and actual practices
51
found to support the allegation. In an unfounded determination, CWS has found no evi-dence
or basis for the accusation.
Several mandated reporters questioned how these determinations had been made. In many
cases, it appeared to this Grand Jury and to law enforcement agencies that there was
enough documentation to warrant further investigation or another conclusion. One example
is a SCAR submitted by mandated reporters that included statements and evidence from a
doctor, teachers, psychologists, and even a child= s drawing to substantiate their accusations.
Even with this supporting documentation, the SCAR was deemed to be unsubstantiated by
CWS. When asked how this conclusion had been determined, CWS told the mandated re-porters
that the information could not be shared due to confidentiality.
Law Enforcement
In our interviews with law enforcement, we learned that in some agencies the dispatchers
routinely receive calls from CWS when suspected child abuse is reported. Other agencies
reported that they do not receive calls as often as they should. This call is important be-cause
it allows the law enforcement agency to respond quickly. Failure to receive immediate
notice delays law enforcement investigations. Important evidence such as bruising and
markings may be lost, the information provided by the victim and suspect may change, and
one or the other of them may leave town.
The reporting process is designed for the telephone reports to be followed by a copy of the
CWS/ CMS version of the SCAR form in cases of physical or sexual abuse. Each law en-forcement
agency has developed its own system for matching the reports they receive by
telephone with the corresponding paper work. In cases where there was no call received,
the SCAR may be the first time law enforcement was made aware of the suspected abuse.
Problems also occur in the paper flow from CWS. SCAR forms are often distributed by
CWS to the wrong law enforcement agency. This puts an extra burden on the receiving
agency to re- route the SCAR, particularly since some receive up to 70 per month.
A related issue is the delivery time. The Penal Code is clear that a written SCAR must be
sent within 36 real ( consecutive) hours to the agency that receives a telephone report. In
many cases, we found the CWS initiated SCAR was not filled out until several days after the
initial call. After it has been processed by CWS, it was another three to five working days,
often more than a week, before the law enforcement agencies and the district attorney= s of-fice
received their copies. The county agencies that we interviewed received the written
SCARs from CWS through the county= s inter- office mail system.
Findings
( 1) CWS is not sending a written SCAR within 36 hours of receiving reports of abuse or
severe neglect to the agency to which it made a telephone report in accordance with
Penal Code ' 11165.7( h). Law enforcement and the district attorney= s office are re-ceiving
the SCARs longer than three days and frequently more than a week later.
52
( 2) Some law enforcement agencies do not receive immediate telephone calls on inci-dents
for which they later receive a SCAR.
( 3) The CWS Desk Guide instructions do not specify that a SCAR is to be distributed to
the district attorney as required in PC ' 11165.12 ( c).
( 4) When CWS determines that reports of sexual and physical abuse and severe ne-glect
are unfounded or unsubstantiated, they do not distribute the written SCAR to
the appropriate agencies. This appears to be in violation of PC ' 11166.
( 5) Some law enforcement agencies are receiving SCARs that are not within their juris-diction
and must forward them to the appropriate agency. This is a time consuming
activity and hinders the timely investigation by the appropriate agency.
( 6) Some law enforcement agencies are receiving duplicate copies of SCARs, one initi-ated
by the mandated reporter and one initiated by the CMS/ CWS. Receiving dupli-cate
SCARs for the same incident can be confusing and time consuming for the law
enforcement agency.
( 7) When a SCAR decision is made regarding a referral from a mandated reporter,
CWS does not consistently send an acknowledgment of the outcome to the reporting
party.
( 8) Training for mandated reporters of child abuse and members of the child welfare
delivery system is not regularly provided, as required in PC ' 16206.
( 9) CWS reporting and coordination is not consistent among law enforcement agencies.
Recommendations
( 1) CWS should ensure that the appropriate law enforcement agency is immediately
telephoned when CWS receives a report of child abuse or severe neglect.
( 2) CWS should ensure that SCARs are distributed to the appropriate law enforcement
agency and the district attorney. The CWS Desk Guides and internal procedures
should be corrected to reflect this.
( 3) CWS should complete and forward a written SCAR to the appropriate agencies
within 36 consecutive hours.
( 4) The law enforcement copy of a SCAR should be forwarded to the correct law en-forcement
agency.
( 5) CWS should attach the appropriate copy of the original SCAR form to CWS/ CMS
SCAR forms they distribute to law enforcement and the district attorney.
53
( 6) CWS should notify mandated reporters of the outcome of the SCARs that they sub-mitted.
( 7) CWS should take a leadership role in promoting training for mandated reporters.
( 8) CWS should review agreements on SCAR reporting with all law enforcement agen-cies
within the county to ensure consistent practices and coordination on a regular
basis.
( 9) County inter- office mail should not be used for delivery of time- sensitive information.
II. CWS Placement Cases and Issues
Perhaps the most difficult decision CWS social workers must make is to remove a child from
his or her home. This is the least preferred outcome within the context of U. S. social values.
Nevertheless, in some instances the protection of a child requires removal. This section fo-cuses
on the complaints the Grand Jury received involving the placement of these children.
When children must be taken from their homes, CWS places them in protective custody. A
Juvenile Court hearing is required within two court days requesting permission to detain the
child, and a detention hearing is held the next court day. When the court determines that
out- of- home care is necessary, the child is typically placed in foster care and placement
planning is initiated. Of the 17 cases that the Grand Jury reviewed, all but two involved
placement issues.
Child Welfare Services submits reports and recommended placement plans to the Juvenile
Court for review. A county attorney ( County Counsel) represents CWS in court, and the
court assures that all other parties to the case, including the children, have legal representa-tion.
A Juvenile Court ruling determines the placement of children. However, CWS is the
conduit and often the screener of the information that the court receives. Several of the
complaints that we received were from other agency professionals who had been frustrated
in their efforts to have their positions represented in the reports and recommendations that
CWS submitted to the court.
State and local policies are clear that the order of preference for permanent placement of
children is: family reunification, adoption, guardianship, and long term foster care. This pri-oritization
is reflected in the social work Best Practices, which have defined policy for many
CWS decisions in recent years. Currently, the state Redesign and AB 636 in effect mandate
this prioritization of placements. 2
Fifteen of the cases that we reviewed involved children who had been removed from their
homes and placed in out- of- home care for some period. In most of these cases CWS efforts
were proceeding toward the goal of family reunification. The common concern among the
complainants was that CWS continued to recommend reunification as a goal, even when it
appeared this was detrimental to the safety and the best interest of the children.
54
The cases that we reviewed provide a glimpse of the complex and difficult work of CWS and
the Juvenile Court. These cases represent a small percentage of the total CWS caseload.
They came to our attention, however, because people who were involved with the children
were so concerned for the children’s welfare and safety, and so frustrated with the place-ment
process or outcome, that they felt they had no other recourse.
Case Reviews
We present an overview of the facts and issues that led to our findings and recommenda-tions
by summarizing some of the cases we reviewed. This is sensitive information that is
protected by laws regarding confidentiality. Therefore, specific details and identifying infor-mation,
such as names, dates, and location, have been omitted. We have provided this in-formation
to the Superior Court and, with the permission of the Presiding Judge, to CWS. It
is not our intent to second guess decisions by social workers who were directly involved in
these cases.
Several of the cases, including our initial investigation, focused on children with develop-mental
disabilities. We begin with discussion of the initial case and related issues. We then
summarize additional cases with placement goals of reunification and adoption. The final
case we present involves the death of a minor while in the protective custody of CWS.
While each case is presented under a specific category for emphasis, many involve issues
from multiple categories.
Developmentally Disabled Children
The first case, discussed below, and five subsequent cases that came to our attention in-volved
developmentally disabled children. The complainants are professionals who worked
closely with these children. Each case is unique, but in all cases the concerns were that
CWS failed to understand the special needs of the children, and did not involve those with
expertise either in working with the children or in developing plans and recommendations to
the court.
The Tri- Counties Regional Center ( TCRC) is the local agency serving developmentally dis-abled
children and adults, under a contract with the state. In cases where developmentally
disabled children have been found to be neglected or abused, they are served jointly by
TCRC and CWS. According to TCRC, “ Children and adults are eligible [ for services] who
are substantially handicapped due to conditions falling within the legal definitions of ‘ devel-opmental
disability.’ These conditions are mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and
autism. Or the person may have a condition closely related to mental retardation which re-quires
similar treatment.” 3 TCRC case workers are experienced in working with the devel-opmentally
disabled and their families, and TCRC can pay for resources to serve them.
Developmentally disabled children often require special medical and therapeutic services to
address physical and emotional problems. Some are delayed in developing motor skills and
abilities, such as dressing, toileting, feeding, etc. Depending on the nature of their disability,
many of these children have difficulty communicating and expressing themselves. Special
education teachers and support staff within the public school systems have expertise in
55
working with developmentally disabled children. They are also most likely to notice changes
in the health and behavior of children with whom they work closely, often over several years.
Case The first complaint to this Grand Jury alleged that CWS was emphasizing a
goal of family reunification long after there was evidence that it was not in the
best interest of two developmentally disabled children. These children began
their Juvenile Court dependen